Pass Tty fl x)? 
Book ,1S 



61st Congress 
2d Session 



3 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



/ Document 
\ No. 416 



SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 

BULLETIN 44 

INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO 
AND CENTRAL AMERICA 

AND THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL 
DISTRIBUTION 

BY 

CYRUS THOMAS 

ASSISTED BY 

JOHN R. SWANTON 



ACCOMPANIED "WITH A. LINGTCJISTIC MA3? 




WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1911 



61st Congress \ 
2d Session J 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



f Document 
\ No. 416 



SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

# BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 

BULLETIN 44 

INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO 
AND CENTRAL AMERICA 

AND THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL 
DISTRIBUTION 

BY 

CYRUS THOMAS 

ASSISTED BY 

JOHN R. SWANTON 



ACCOMPANIED WITH A LINGUISTIC MAP 




WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1911 

£ f)>*0 lit 6V (SSVKtj 



14 19)1 



PREFATORY NOTE 

About the year 1895 Maj. J. W. Powell, Director of the Bureau 
of American Ethnology, determined on the preparation of a linguistic 
map of that part of North America south of the Mexican boundary, 
having in view the extension southward of the classification and map- 
ping of the linguistic families north of that border. Dr. Cyrus Thomas 
was assigned the task of assembling the prehminary data and the prep- 
aration of a sketch map, but the death of Major Powell before the 
research had assumed final shape, and the assignment to Doctor 
Thomas of more urgent work, necessitated delay in the comple- 
tion until the latter part of 1908. At that time Dr. J. P. Swanton, 
who had entered on a study of the languages of the tribes of the 
lower Mississippi valley and the Gulf coast, became interested in the 
linguistic classification of the tribes of middle America, and on the 
joint suggestion of Doctors Thomas and Swanton copies of the map 
were prepared and submitted to a number of students who had 
devoted attention to the languages and ethnology of Mexico and 
Central America, soliciting criticism and making inquiry respecting 
the advisability of publication at this stage. The following anthro- 
pologists responded, furnishing valuable data: Dr. Carl Sapper, Dr. 
A. L. Kroeber, Dr. Frederick Starr, Dr. Nicolas Leon, Dr. H. Pittier 
de Fabrega, Dr. A. M. Tozzer, Senor Francisco Belmar, Dr. Ales 
Hrdlicka, and Dr. Franz Boas. Corrections and additions were 
made in accordance with some of the suggestions offered, bringing the 
classification and the map as nearly to date as possible. These results 
are now submitted, not as a final work, but as an attempt to repre- 
sent the present state of knowledge regarding a subject which may 
never be cleared entirely of obscurity. 

W. H. Holmes, Chief. 

June 2, 1909. 

in 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Introduction '. 1 

Mexico : 2 

Cocopa 2 

r Cochimi 3 

Waicuri and Pericu 4 

Pima 7 

Opata 7 

Tarahumare 8 

Seri 10 

The Yaqui group 11 

Zoe and Tepahue 17 

Tepehuane. 19 

Acaxee 19 

Cora 21 

Huichol - - - y, 22 

Tepecano, Teule, Cazcan, and Tecuexe 23 

Names of tribes in northwestern Mexico not considered separately 24 

Concho 36 

Toboso 37 

Pakawan ... 38 

6-Laguneros 38 

Zacateco 1 40 

Guachichile 40 

The term Chichimeca 41 

Tamaulipeco , 44 

Pisone and Janambre 44 

Olive 44 

Names of tribes in northeastern Mexico not considered separately 45 

Otomi 46 

Pame 46 

Mazahua 47 

Pirinda 48 

Meco 48 

Huasteca 48 

-"-"Totonac 49 

: Tepehua : 49 

Meztitlaneca 50 

Tlascalan 50 

Cuitlateco , 50 

'Tarasco 51 

Aztec -• 51 

^Mixtec.-.. 52 

Trike 52 

Chocho 53 



v 



VI 



CONTENTS 



Mexico — Continued. p age 

Amishgo 54 

_^-Chatino : ; 54 

Mazateco ; . 54 

— ■ Cuicateco 55 

Chinantec : 55 

Zapotec _ _ _ 55 

The Mixtec and Zapotec languages compared 56 

Chontal. 58 

Huave , 59 

-Mixe . 60 

Zoque 60 

Central America 61 

Chiapanec 61 

Chontal (of Tabasco) 61 

Tzotzil 62 

Tzental 62 

Choi 63 

-Chafiabal 64 

Chicomucelteca 65 

Motozintleca 65 

Tapachulteca 65 

Subinha -. 65 

Jacalteca 65 

Chuje 66 

Achis 66 

Mam 66 

Ixil 67 

Aguacateca 67 

Kiche 67 

Cakchikel 67 

Tzutuhil 68 

Uspanteca. 68 

Kekchi 68 

Pokonchi 69 

Pokomam 69 

Chorti 69 

Maya proper 70 

Maya dialects 70 

Alaguilac 72 

Pipil 72 

Xinca 73 

Lenca. 73 

Tlascalteca 74 

Jicaque : 75 

Paya 75 

Carib : 76 

Matagalpa 76 

Mangue 76 

Subtiaban 77 

Dirian 77 

Niquiran 78 

Orotinan 78 

Ulva... 78 



CONTENTS VII 

Central America — Continued. p age 

Rama r 1 80 

Mosquito 80 

General remarks on the tribes of Costa Rica 81 

oGuatuso 84 

£> Guetare. ...... 85 

Voto 87 

Suerre (?) 87 

Quepo (?) 88 

Talamanca 88 

Sigua 92 

Doraskean tribes : 93 

Guaymie 94 

Cuna 95 

Ethnic dividing line between North and South America 96 

Bibliography : 97 

Index of linguistic families, tribes, and settlements 101 



ILLUSTRATION 



Linguistic map of Mexico and Central America at end 



INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL 

AMERICA 



By Cyrus Thomas 
Assisted by John R. Swanton 

INTRODUCTION 

The narrative portion of this bulletin is devoted to a statement of 
the authority on which the establishment of the linguistic areas indi- 
cated on the accompanying map rests, along with the writer's reasons 
for adopting certain names and rejecting others. For Mexico, 
Orozco y Berra's map and conclusions are used as a basis, and it 
will be found, though the original authorities, so far as accessible, 
have been examined, that there has been occasion for but few and 
comparatively slight changes^- This authority was not only familiar 
with all of the works, early and late, bearing on this subject that had 
been published up to his time, but he also had access to numerous 
unpublished documents. 

As these notes will show, there are some other linguistic names 
which, in view of the evidence, are entitled perhaps to places on the 
map, but it has been considered best to omit them wherever much 
doubt exists. It has been found impossible, and perhaps it will 
always remain so, to indicate the smaller linguistic areas within the 
major stocks in conformity with any absolute standard. The Mayan, 
Zapotecan, Zoquean, and part of the Nahuatlan stocks are the only 
ones which could be satisfactorily treated in this manner, but it must 
be remembered that many others would be found to have similar sub- 
divisions were data available. Where relationship is suspected be- 
tween two or more stocks an endeavor has been made to indicate the 
fact by using related shades of coloring. All tribes treated in the text 
will not be found indicated on the map, in some cases because the 
languages spoken by them did not differ sufficiently from those of 
their neighbors to warrant independent representation, and in others 
because they occupied " unclassified " areas. As mentioned in the 
prefatory note, the map accompanying this bulletin has been sub- 
mitted to a number of students familiar with Mexican ethnology, 
and several alterations and additions suggested by them have been 
adopted. 

C. T. 
1 



2 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



! 
I 



MEXICO 

COCOPA 

{Synonym: Cucapa) 

The Indians speaking this idiom are generally placed in the Yuman 
family, and, according to Orozco y Berra, are sometimes referred to by 
the names Cuhanes, Cuanes, and Yuanes. The name given on his 
map is Cuhanes. Unfortunately, however, he has made two tribes 
of them, one (Cucapas, or Cuhanes) which he places in the Yuman 
family; the other (Cocopas) in the Piman family. Doctor Gatschet 
(4 1 5) 1 makes the two names synonyms and places the one tribe in 
the Yuman family. However, the relations of the tribe have not 
yet been satisfactorily worked out. These Indians live along the 
Colorado river near its mouth. 

Cochimi 

The Cochimi were a division of the Yuman family living in the 
northern portions of the Calif ornian peninsula. Their territory ex- 
tended from the international boundary southward to, or a little 
beyond, the twenty-sixth parallel of north latitude, including Loreto, 
where it was bounded by the territory of the Waicuri (Bancroft, i, 
557). Orozco y Berra says (1:366): "Los Cochinries ocupaban la 
peninsula desde Loreto hasta poco mas alia de nuestra frontera." 
Venegas (i, 66) says: " Desde el territorio de Loreto, por todo lo 
descubierto al Norte de la nacion Cochimi;" Clavigero (22) says from 
25° to 33° north latitude. 

The Cochimi spoke a distinct language of the Yuman stock, di- 
vided, however, into from two to four dialects. Orozco y Berra, in 
his text (1: 366-367), mentions three, Cochimi del Norte, Edu, and 
Didu, but on his map he adds what seems to be a fourth, Cochimi 
(proper) . He is evidently in error in referring to the Edu and Didu 
here, since they were Waicurian and were, situated considerably 
farther south. The northern Cochimi are mentioned by some 
authors as the Laymon. Prichard (n, 553) mentions "The Cochimi, 
Pericu, and Loretto languages; the former is the same as the Lay- 
mon, for the Laymones are the northern Cochimies. 77 Hassel (57) 
mentions Laymon as distinct, and the Cochimi with three distinct 
dialects — San Francisco Borgia, Utschiti, and Ika. Bancroft 
(in, 687) mentions but two dialects of the Cochimi in his text — Lay- 
mon and Ika. It is questionable, however, whether the Ika were not 
Waicurian. 

In spite of Orozco y Berra' s error in placing the Didu and Edu, the 
territory assigned by him to the Yuman stock agrees with the infor- 
mation of our best early authorities, and he has been followed in the 
accompanying map. 



1 See the Bibliography, pages 97-100. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 3 



WAICURI AND PERICU 

It is usually stated that three principal languages were spoken in 
Lower California — Cochimi, which constituted a dialect of the Yuman 
family and has already been treated, Waicuri, and Pericu. Could 
the authorities for this statement be sifted down in every case, it 
would probably be found that most of them derived their information 
from Venegas, who quotes a missionary named Taraval. In the 
same chapter Venegas admits that other missionaries increased the 
number to four or five, and gives one to understand that the more 
intimate a person became with the people the fewer linguistic 
divisions he found to exist. That Cochimi and the languages to 
the south of it were entirely distinct is known on linguistic evidence. 
The short vocabulary of Bagert is nearly all that is nuw available 
of the languages at the lower end of the peninsula, and Brinton at- 
tempted to find resemblances between this and Yuruan, but the 
futility of his attempt has been demonstrated by Mr. J. N. B. Hewitt, 
and there can be no question of the independent position of the two 
languages. Regarding Pericu, the case is different, because, so far 
as known, there is not a word of that language, except some proper 
names, in existence, the only sources of information being the state- 
ments of early writers and circumstantial evidence. As already 
noted, the majority of direct statements make this people inde- 
pendent of the Waicuri, but it is questionable how many independent 
original sources are represented. On the other hand, two authorities 
mention but two stock languages in the entire peninsula, one of 
which is, of course, Yuman, while the other includes all of the lan- 
guages to the south of it. Again, if Pericu were really distinct from 
all others, why are so many mistakes made in applying the term? 
Although the Cora who occupied the eastern side of the peninsula 
at its lower end are frequently spoken of as a Waicuri tribe, Venegas 
states that they were Pericu, and among later writers Orozco y Berra 
does not hesitate to include them in his Pericu area. Again, al- 
though Venegas gives the Utciti as a branch of the Waicuri in his 
chapter on languages, in his second volume he mentions them as a 
Pericu tribe. Thirdly, although linguistic evidence can not be 
brought to bear satisfactorily, there is in the word Pericu itself and 
in a number of personal and mythological names from that tongue, 
proof of the existence of the phonetic r, which is also present in 
Waicuri, but conspicuously absent from Cochimi. Altogether it 
seems best to regard Pericu as related to Waicuri, only more distantly 
than any other of the group of southern dialects. As indicated on 
the map, the name appears to have been confined properly to one 
tribe about the mission of San Jose, near Cape St. Lucas, and extend- 
ing northward on the west coast of Lower California to about 23° 30'. 



4 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



Pima 

The Pima are scattered, as shown by the map, in five isolated 
groups, as follows: 

Pima Alto (Upper Pima). 
Pima Bajo (Lower Pima). 
Potlapigua. 
Pima of Bamoa. 
Tepehuane colony. 

Pima Alto. — As the Indians of this group are confined chiefly to 
the United States and are referred to in the Seventh Annual Report 
of the Bureau of American Ethnology, and as the area is marked on 
the linguistic map accompanying that Report, it is unnecessary to 
discuss them here. 

Pima Bajo. — The Lower Pima extended east and west along the 
lower middle portion of the Yaqui river, joining the Tarahumare on 
the east, the Opata on the north, the Yaqui on the south, and the Seri 
on the west. These are substantially the boundaries given by Orozco 
y Berra, and are based chiefly on the position of villages in which 
the Piman language was spoken. However, the evidence in regard 
to the narrow strip extending along the south bank of the San Jose 
river to the Gulf, as shown on the map, is not entirely satisfactory. 
It is also possible that the eastern boundary has been carried a 
short distance into the Tarahumare territory. 

Father Ribas (370) mentions as pueblos of the Lower Pima: Como- 
ripa, Tecoripa, Zuaque (Suaque), and Aivino. The last two deter- 
mine the extreme northern boundary as given by Orozco y Berra, 
while the first was located on the Yaqui river not far from the south- 
ern boundary. His statement (358) that the pueblos of the Movas, 
Onavas, and Nuri belonged to the Upper Pima must be a misprint 
or a clerical error, as they were certainly situated in the territory of the 
Pima Bajo, and he must nave known this; however, there is further 
mention of this point below. The situation of the Nuri pueblo deter- 
mines the extreme southern point of the area in the map, and Nocori 
the northwestern extension. However, the pueblos of Yepachic and 
Tonachic in the eastern part of the territory, as laid down by Orozco y 
Berra, appear, from the termination of the names, to be of Tarahumare 
origin, and this supposition seems to be confirmed by the statement 
of Juan Ortiz Zapata (340) that these two pueblos were included 
among the Tarahumare missions. A slight change from Orozco y 
Berra's eastern boundary line has therefore been made to correspond 
with this evidence. Though the Pima language may possibly have 
been spoken at these two missions, the names betray the fact that 
the pueblos were originally Tarahumare. 

Potlapigua. — An isolated group of Pima, named Potlapigua, is men- 
tioned by Orozco y Berra (1:348) in the region of Babispe, on the 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OP MEXICO AND CENTKAL AMERICA 5 

northeastern boundary of the Opata territory, though not marked 
on his map. They are located by Hamy 1 on his map, however, and 
are noted on the map accompanying this paper, though numbered 3 
by mistake. That this separation from the main body dates back to 
the period herein referred to seems to be proven by the fact that 
Bibas (359) mentions the "Bapispes" as in the direction of New 
Mexico from Sinaloa. 

Pima of Bamoa. — Another isolated group was situated south of 
the Mayo on lower Sinaloa river, Bamoa being the chief pueblo. 
This group, which is properly marked on Orozco y Berra' s map 
(under the name Bamoa), consisted, chiefly at least, of the Pima 
who accompanied Cabeza de Vaca on his return from Florida (Ribas, 
119; Orozco y Berra, 1: 333}. The former says expressly that these 
accompanying Indians were Nebomes (Pima) and that they settled 
the pueblo of Bamoa on the Rio de Petatlan (Sinaloa river). They 
do not appear to have spoken a language dialectically different from 
Lower Pima, hence the name Bamoa is omitted from our map. 

Tepehuane colony. — Hamy locates another small group, without 
any special name, in the extreme western portion of the Tepehuane 
territory. This is based probably on the statement by Orozco y 
Berra (1 : 324) that some documents say that the villages of this sec- 
tion were inhabited by Pima, and others, that they were peopled 
by Tepehuane. He adds the belief that they were chiefly Pima. 

Mention is made of several supposed sub tribes of the Lower Pima, 
as the Movas, Comuripa, Aibino, Onavas, and Nuri; but these names 
appear to refer chiefly to different villages without sufficient evidence 
of difference in dialect. Orozco y Berra (1:353) says the Movas, 
Onavas, Nuri, Comuripa, and Tecoripa were pueblos of the Lower 
Pima in which the Pima language was spoken, but that the Aibino 
and Sisibotari were subtribes of the Upper Pima (an evident error, 
as Aibino was a Lower Pima pueblo) ; Hamy places the Aibino, 
Comuripa, Onavas, Movas, and Nuri on his map as subtribes of the 
Lower Pima. (See remarks below.) 

Doctor Brinton asserts (3: 127) that the Ahome were ''a distinctly 
Pima people/' referring to Buelna as authority. 2 This is probably 
an error, as the dialect spoken by this people appears to have been 
substantially the same as that spoken by the Guazave, who per- 
tained to the Yaqui group (Yaqui, Mayo, Tehueco), as will appear 
in the notes relating to that tribe. 

Although the Guayma have generally been considered a subtribe 
of the Seri, Hervas appears to dissent from this view, and compara- 
tively recently Pinart, from an examination of a remnant of the 
group, is inclined to connect them with the Pima (Brinton, 3:127). 

1 Bull. Soc. d'anthrop. de Paris, 3. s., vi, 785-791, Nov., 1883, and Decades Americanse 3d and 4th, 99. 
See also Doc. Hist. Mex., 4th ser., i, 401. 

2 Peregrinacion de los Aztecas y Nombres Geograficos Indlgenas de Sinaloa, p. 21, Mexico, 1887. 



6 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



Further examination of this point will be found in the notes relating 
to the Seri. 

Reference to the supposed tribes or subtribes Aibino (or Aivino), 
Movas (or Mobas), Comuripa (or Comoripa), Onavas (or Onabas), 
Tecoripa, and Nuri is again made in order to give briefly the reasons 
for omitting them from the map. As stated above, they are con- 
sidered by Orozco y Berra as merely pueblos in which the Pima 
language was spoken without such dialectic differences as to justify 
considering them distinct. .As a rule, all dialects referred to by early 
authors writing of this section are spoken of as " distinct" or " par- 
ticular" languages, though the writers recognized their affinities. 

In regard to the Onava and Tecoripa, it seems to be fairly inferred 
from the statements byCancio (155-156) that they spoke the Piman 
language. This agrees with the statement by Zapata (358-361) 
that the language spoken at Tecoripa, Cumuripa, and Onava was 
Pima, and that at Mova the language was partly Pima and partly 
Egue (Eudeve), and hence not distinct. Velarde (399) calls the 
Indians of Tecoripa, and also the Aibino, Pima. Ribas (370) includes 
the pueblos Comoripa, Tecoripa, and Aibino among those of the 
Lower Pima. 

The last-named author (299, 358) speaks of the Nuri as Nebome 
(Pima) and on the latter page connects them with the Upper Pima, 
but on page 369 says they are a nation of a language different from 
that of the Upper Pima, though not very distant from them. 
However, according to Orozco y Berra (1:351) they inhabited the 
pueblo of Nuri, which was certainly Lower Pima. It seems from 
Ribas (lib. vi, cap. vi) that the Nuri he refers to as belonging to or 
adjoining the Upper Pima were a different people from those occupying 
the Nuri pueblo. 

Although Hamy places these names (except Tecoripa) on his map 
heretofore referred to, and notwithstanding the fact that they are 
spoken of as "naciones," there is not sufficient evidence to warrant 
the conclusion that they spoke distinct dialects. Ribas (373-374), 
speaking of the Aivino and other pueblos of that immediate section 
(en todaesta tierra adetro),says two languages were current through- 
out, and that Padre Olinano, who preached to them, understood well 
the two languages of these nations. However, he fails to state 
what languages these were. By turning to Zapata's Relacion, here- 
tofore referred to, some light on this point may be obtained. 
Speaking of the Mobas (361), he says their language, as mentioned 
above, was partly Pima and partly Egue (Eudeve), which so far 
agrees with Ribas' s statement and indicates the two languages to 
which the latter refers. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 7 



Opata 
{Synonym: Teguima) 

The Opata lived chiefly about the headwaters of the Yaqui and 
Hermosillo rivers, the Apache being on the northeast, the Tarahumare 
on the southeast, the Lower Pima on the south, and the Seri on the 
west. There were two subtribes which spoke dialects of the mother 
language — the Eudeve (Heve or Dohema) and the Jova (Jobal or 
Ova). (Doc. Hist.Mex., 3d s., iv, 552-553.) 

Orozco y Berra says (1:343-344) that according to D. Francisco 
Velasco the Opata "nacion" was subdivided into the Opatas Teguis, 
Opatas Teguimas, and Opatas Coguinachis. His quotation is 
not strictly exact, as Velasco, in the article referred to (2:705), 
gives as divisions Jovas, Seguis (Teguis), Teguimas, and Coguinachis. 
But as the last three names do not appear to have had any linguistic 
signification, and are not otherwise referred to as those of subtribes, 
they may be dismissed from consideration. 

The Eudeve (Heve, Dohme, or Dohema), forming the chief sub tribe, 
inhabited the headwaters of the Rio Hermosillo. Their location 
is given in Orozco y Berra' s work by pueblos in the region mentioned. 
The dialect of this subtribe shows considerable difference from that of 
the Opata proper (Pimentel, n, 153), but not sufficient to consider it 
otherwise than as a dialect. An anonymous author (Doc. Hist. Mex., 
3d s., iv, 494, 534) even says the difference is not greater than that 
between Portuguese and Castilian, or between French and Provencal. 
Alegre (n, 216) seems also to have considered the dialects as not 
widely different. 

The Jova (Jobal or Ova) formed another subtribe speaking a lan- 
guage dialectically different from Opata and Eudeve, though more 
closely related to the former than was Eudeve. Although the loca- 
tion of this subtribe seems to be pretty clearly indicated by the his- 
torical evidence as being in the eastern part of the Opata territory, as 
laid down in Orozco y Berra's map, Hamy, in his map heretofore 
referred to, locates them in the central portion of the Tarahumare 
territory as drawn by him and Orozco y Berra. This appears to be 
based on the statement of the latter author that one of the Jova pue- 
blos was Santo Tomas, which he locates about the place where Hamy 
places the Jovas on his map. However, Orozco y Berra also names as 
Jova pueblos San Jose Teopari, Los Dolores, Sahuaripa, Ponida, 
Arivetzi, and San Mateo Malzura, all of which are in the southeast- 
ern part of the Opata territory as given in his map, which, as before 
indicated, Hamy has followed in marking the tribal boundaries. 

If the Jova territory extended to and included Santo Tomas, then 
the Opata territory, if this pueblo is correctly laid down, should be 
extended moro to the southeast than it is on Orozco y Berra's map. 



8 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



This is doubtful, it being more likely that this pueblo was peopled 
chiefly by Indians speaking the Jova language, the other pue- 
blos of that section being Tarahumare. Hervas (332) includes Santo 
Tomas among the pueblos or missions of the Chinipas, who, he 
says, spoke a dialect of Tarahumare, or, as will be shown farther 
on, was not distinct therefrom. His list, however, is dated 1767. 
As throwing some light on this point it is noticeable that Zapata 
(340-343) states that the mission at Tosonachic in the Tarahumare 
territory directly north of Santo Tomas, and Yepachic directly west 
of the latter on the border of the Pima Baio territory, as given by 
Orozco y Berra, were Tarahumare missions. But that at Matachic, 
immediately south of Tosonachic (or Tesomachic), and between it 
and Santo Tomas and the region immediately around it, he speaks of 
as belonging to the Jova (or Ova), or at least places it under the head- 
ing "Nacion de los Ovas." 

It would seem from these statements (in 1678) that the Opata boun- 
dary should be extended a little farther to the southeast than given by 
Orozco y Berra, yet the termination chic (Matachic) savors strongly 
of Tarahumare origin, and Matachic is included in the Tarahumare 
in the Handbook of American Indians. As will be seen below and by 
reference to our map, a small portion of the extreme eastern part of 
the Lower Pima territory, as given in Orozco y Berra's map, has been 
included in the Tarahumare area. 

In regard to the Batuco, Cumupa, Buasdaba, and Bapiape, men- 
tioned by some authorities as located within the Opata territory, see 
notes below respecting the list of names not given on the accom- 
panying map. 

Tarahumare 

The Tarahumare inhabited the sierras, their area embracing parts 
of Chihuahua, Durango, and Sonora, the Apache being on the north, 
the Opata and Lower Pima on the west, the Tepehuane on the south, 
and the Concho on the east, and extending from about latitude 26° 
to 29° and longitude 106° to 108° W. Orozco y Berra (1:34) says, 
"Cuenta hasta cinco dialectos poco distantes de la lengua madre, y los 
siguientes, que se separan mas 6 menos de su fuente." (The italics are 
the present authors.) Then he names the following four: Varohio, 
Guazapare, Pachera, and Tubar. What is to be understood by the 
"five dialects but little distant from the mother tongue," unless 
the four named are included, does not clearly appear from his work; 
at least it seems that he did not consider them sufficiently "distant" 
to regard them as distinct dialects, as he does not follow up the 
subject. 

Hervas (332) states that the Tarahumara (the Tarahumare country) 
is divided into two provinces, called Tarahumara alta and Tarahu- 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 9 



mara baja. To what extent this is to be considered as denoting 
dialectic differences can only be inferred from the statement which 
follows : 

En aquella se habla la lengua chinipa, de la que en el ano 1767 los jesuitas tenian 
siete misiones, llamadas de chinipa's y de la Tarahumara-baxa. La lengua chinipa parece 
ser dialecto de la tarahumara, que era la dominante en las misiones de los jesuitas en la 
Tarahumara-alta . 

This statement seems to imply that Tarahumare proper was spoken 
in the upper district and Chinipa in the lower district. But as 
there appears to be some uncertainty and confusion on this point, it 
will be best to notice first the dialects mentioned above and then 
to return to the subject. 

Orozco y Berra marks and colors separately on his map the Tubar, 
Guazipare, and Varohio areas, locating them along the southwestern 
boundary of the Tarahumare territory, where it meets the territory 
of the Yaqui group. 

The earliest notice of the subtribe Tubar (Tubare or Tovare) is 
probably that byRibas (11 7-1 18), from whom we learn that the group, 
which was not very numerous, dwelt in rancherias in the sierras about 
the headwaters of the Rio del Fuerte (Rio Cinaloa) . He says the peo- 
ple spoke two languages totally distinct (totalmente distintas), but does 
not indicate their relationship. Hervas (320), commenting on the 
passage, says he infers from it that a portion of the Tubar subtribe 
spoke the " lengua propia " (meaning the Tarahumare or Chinipa) and 
the other part Tepehuane, which is probably the correct explanation. 
He (Hervas) identifies the Chinipa with those he terms the Lower 
Tarahumare. Orozco y Berra (1 : 323-324), referring to a manuscript 
in possession of Ramirez, mentions Concepcion, San Ignacio, and 
San Miguel as Tubar pueblos or pueblos in the Tubar region, and 
states that they were situated on one of the affluents of the Rio del 
Fuerte, adding that they spoke a particular idiom which was a dia- 
lect of the Tarahumare, distinct from the Varohio and Guazipare, and 
called the Tubar. 

The earliest notice of the Varohio tribe or subtribe is also by Ribas 
(255), who mentions them in connection with Chinipa, Guazipare, 
Temori, and Ihio. He locates them in the sierras toward the north, 
between the Mayo and ."Cinaloa" (Fuerte) rivers, which corresponds 
with the position given by Orozco y Berra on his map. Hervas 
(333) says they and the Guazipare were related linguistically to the 
Chinipa (Tarahumare). Zapata says (388-390) that Varohio and 
Guazipare are the same language, except that the latter is more 
nearly like Tarahumare. The same writer (333) connects the Pa- 
chera with the Tarahumare thus: "A tres leguas de San Jose 
Temaichic esta otro pueblo y mucha gente en el llamada taraumar 
Pachera." The termination zhic of the name Temaichic indicates 
8347°— Bull. 44—11 2 



10 



BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



Tarahumare origin. Moreover, the pueblo was evidently in Tara- 
liumare territory, though there is no map at hand on which the 
name appears in this form. 

Returning now to the Chinipa, the following facts should be noted : 
The name has evidently been used in different senses. Ribas (95-96) 
mentions them, but chiefly with reference to the distinction between 
them and the Sinaloa (Yaqui group), in the expression "uno de los 
pueblos de Chinipa, " which indicates that he understood the name as 
including more than a single pueblo. At another place (255), speak- 
ing of "other nations which people the interior of the same sierra/' 
he says: "They call these nations Chinipas, Guizipares, Temoris, 
Ihios, and Varohios. " 

Zapata (386-387) says that the Partido de Santa Ines de Chinipa 
lay 25 leagues east of San Andres de Conicari, on the headwaters of the 
Rio del Fuerte. Alluding to the valley in which Chinipa was situated, 
he adds: "Que se compone de este de Chinipa y otro que se le junta y 
viene de los tubures gentiles. " The language is not mentioned in this 
paragraph, but in the next, where Guadalupe of the Boragios (Varo- 
hios) is alluded to, it is stated that the language of this pueblo and 
of Santa Ines (Chinipa) is Varohio, and is recognized as the same as 
"Taura" (Tarahumare), varying somewhat "en la gramatica. 7 ' 
The pueblo of Chinipa is located on Orozco y Berra's map in the 
Varohio territory, and in his classification (1:58, 326) he includes 
the people under Varohio as speaking that language. Alegre (n, 121) 
locates the Chinipa pueblos on the headwaters of the Rio del Fuerte, as 
does the preceding authority, but says they were joined for mission 
purposes with the Huites (which see, below). Again (174) he men- 
tions them in the same relation as Ribas — "entre Chinipas, Guaza- 
paris, Temoris y algunas otras naciones. 77 

Villa-Senor y Sanchez (ii, 399) speaks of Chinipa as a pueblo, the 
location being the same as that of Santa Ines Chinipa, above men- 
tioned; and in another place (402) refers to the "Sierra de Chinipas." 

One fact worthy of notice in this connection is that Padre Miguel 
Tellechea, author of Compendio Gramatical del Idioma Tarahumar 
(1826), was "ministro del Pueblo de Chinipas" and resided there a 
part, if not most, of the time his work was in course of preparation. 
Is this grammar based on the Varohio dialect or on the parent Tara- 
humare language ? Had the distinctions and differences disappeared 
at the time he wrote? Chinipa is omitted from the map as not dis- 
tinct from Varohio. 

Seri 

The territory of the Seri as laid down by Orozco y Berra extended 
along the coast of the Gulf of California from Guaymas, or rather the 
Rio San Jose, northward a little above 30° N., including the island of 



Thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 11 



Tiburon, and eastward to the territory of the Opata and the Lower 
Pima, being bounded on the north by the territory of the Upper 
Pima. Hamy's map, heretofore referred to, extends the northern 
boundary a little farther north than Orozco y Berra's. The evidence 
on which this northern boundary is based, however, is not definitely 
given by either of these authors. Orozco y Berra makes the brief 
statement (1: 354), "Los Salineros hacia los confines de la Pimeria 
alta," and states on the same page that the Salineros speak an idiom, 
of Seri, but adds further, that in his classification he counts but 
"la principal" (the Seri proper) and the two dialects, Guayma and 
Upanguayma, showing that he does not consider Tiburon, Tepoca, 
and Salineros as varying sufficiently to be regarded as dialects. 

Although the Guayma idiom has usually been considered a dialect 
of Seri and so designated by authors, Hervas has described it as dis- 
tinct, and recently Pinart, from an examination made on the ground, 
concludes it is related to Pima. Hervas says (318) that in one of the 
missions of Yaqui river named Belen were Indians of three nations — 
the Yaqui, Seri, and Guayma — which used three different languages. 
Jose F. Ramirez, discussing this statement, presents reasons, given 
in the note below, for doubting its correctness, and shows such rela- 
tions between the Guayma and the Lower Pima as may well explain 
the result obtained by Pinart, 1 but at the same time distinguishes 
Guayma from Pima. The linguistic position of Upanguayma, which 
is related to the latter, is of course determined by its position. Jose 
Gallardo (Bancroft, m, 704) says there is but little difference between 
Seri and Upanguayma. 

The Yaqui Group 

{Synonyms: Cahita, Cinaloa, Sinaloa) 

The tribes of this group (often included under the name Cahita) 
were located chiefly along the middle and lower portions of the 
valleys of the Rio Yaqui, Rio Mayo, and Rio del Fuerte, extending 

1 " El abate Hervas dice (tomo i, pagina 318) que <en la mision de Belen habia tres naciones que se llama- 
ban Hiaqui, Seri y Guaima, que hablaban tres lenguas diferentes.' Esta ultima parte de su asercion pre- 
senta las siguientes dificultades. En el tomo xvi de los manuscritos del archivo general, hallara V. S. un 
papel que se intitula. 'Estado de la provincia de Sonora, con el catalogo de sus pueblos, iglesias etc. y 
Breve descripcion de la Sonora Jesuitica, segun se balla por el mes de Julio de este ano de 17o0 etc' No 
tengo a la vista esta Memoria, mas por mis apuntes, debe ser en la parte donde el autor describe la mision 
del Populo en la que dice : ' que la lengua de los Seris es la misma de los Guaimas. ' Ademas, en un informe 
que poseo del obispo de Sonora, dirigido a D. Jose de Galvez en 20 de Setiembre de 1784, dice el prelado, 
hablando de aquella mision de Belen 'viven unidas dos naciones de indios Pimas bajos y Guaimas: estos 
ultimos desampararon su pueblo por los continuos asaltos de los Seris. Los Pimas usansu propio idioma. 
. . -. Los Guaimas usan su antiguo idioma,' etc. 

" Pasando ahora al examen de estas noticias, y haciendolo en el drden inverso de su esposicion, tendremos 
como primer hecho, probado con la respetable autoridad del Diocesano, laexistencia de dos lenguas diversas 
en la mision de Belem, la de los Guaimas y la de los Pimas bajos. Sigue en orden la del misionero jesuita 
que dice, eran una misma la Guaima y la Seri. Parece, pues, que nada puede contrastar estos testimonios 
directos, y que en consecuencia hay una inexactitud en la asercion del abate Hervas que hace distintas la 
lengua Seri y Guaima. Aquella se esplica muy naturalmente con solo reflexionar que el sabio filologo 
advierte, obtuvo su noticia de uno que decia haberla oido 4 un misionero."— Bol. Soc. Geog. Estad. Me'x., 
u, 149. 



12 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



from the Gulf of California to the sierras. Their territory connected 
on the north with that of the Lower Pima and on the east with that 
of the Tarahumare. It seems that on the southeast, as early as the 
sixteenth century, they were in contact chiefly with people speaking 
a Nahuatl idiom. 

But three dialects — Yaqui, Ma} T o, and Tehueco — are usually men- 
tioned. Pimentel (i, 453) says of the group, "It is divided into three 
dialects, Yaqui, Mayo, and Tehueco.'.' Buelna (x) limits them to the 
same three, and Balbi gives Zuaque, Ma} T o, and Yaqui. In his classi- 
fied list Orozco y Berra (1:58) names Yaqui, Mayo, Tehueco, and 
Vacoregue, and Brinton (3: 125) names the Tehueco, Zuaque, Mayo, 
and Yaqui as subtribes. Hervas (322) concludes from Iris study of 
Ribas's work that the following dialects were recognized : Yaqui (which 
he makes equivalent to Sinaloa), Zuaque, Ma} r o, Ocoroni, Tehueco, 
Conicari, Chicorata, Cavenata, Ahome, and Guazave. (As to Ocoroni, 
Conicari, Chicorata, and Ahome, see notes below.) Cavenata is 
merely the name of a pueblo given nowhere else as a dialect. 

As there appears to be no difference of opinion in regard to Yaqui, 
Mayo, and Tehueco being dialects of the group, it will be necessary 
to refer only to the early historical evidence regarding localities. 

As it has been suggested by Doctor Kroeb.er that the term Cahita 
is merely the native word meaning "nothing," and is therefore 
inappropriate as an ethnic designation, the name "Yaqui group" 
(from that of the best known tribe) has been adopted as more 
appropriate. 

The Indians using the Yaqui dialect are almost universally located 
by our authorities on the Yaqui river; there are, however, some 
exceptions which will be referred to. The first notice of them is 
probably that in the Segurida Relacion Anonima of the journey of 
Nuno de Guzman, between 1530 and 1540. 1 It is stated in this 
(n, 300-302) that after passing over the Rio de Tamachola, winch 
appears to be the Fuerte (as Alegre, i, 231, implies), and traveling 
30 leagues, they came to a river called Mayo on which lived a tribe 
("gente") of the same "arte" and same language as those of the 
Sinaloa. Having passed on (northward), they came to another 
stream called Yaquimi, well peopled, "y los pueblos del arte de los de 
Cinaloa y de Mayon." The writer adds on the next page, "Desde el 
Rio de Petatlan hasta el de Yaquimi es todo una gente." That the 
Petatlan is the same river as that at present named Sinaloa is 
affirmed by Alegre (i, 231). 

As there is some confusion in regard to the use of the names Sinaloa 
(or Cinaloa) and Zuaque as applied to tribes, and also some confusion in 
regard to the location of some of the tribes, it seems advisable first to 
give the evidence relating thereto. Hervas (323), quoting the folio wing, 



iln Colec. Doc. Hist. Mex.; 



Icazbalceta in the Bibliography. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 13 

"El P. Christobal de Villalba [Villalta] (lib. 5, cap. 15, p. 324) sabia 
excelentemente la lengua de los Maquis, y propia de los cinaloas," 
adds u por lo que lengua Maqui, y lengua cinaloa es una misma cosa." 
On the preceding page (322) he also identifies the Cinaloa and Hiaqui 
(Yaqui) as one and the same — "Cinaloa 6 Hiaqui." Now Ribas 
(284) locates the Hiaquis on the lower portion of the "Rio Hiaqui " 
(en las doze ultimas a la mar), but places the Cinaloas on the Fuerte, 
or, as he calls it, Rio Cinaloa or Kio Zuaque. He says (142) the river 
is called by various names, sometimes the Cinaloa, sometimes Tegueco, 
and sometimes Zuaque; that the four principal nations on this 
river are the "Cinaloas, Teguecos, Zuaques, y Ahomes," and that the 
Cinaloa dwell in the mountains at the head of the river. It is evident 
from this and many other similar statements in his work that Kibas 
considered the "Cinaloas" as distinct from the Hiaqui (Yaqui), the 
Mayo, Tehueco, and Zuaque, though linguistically related to them. 
If there was a tribe of this name, which is possible, it is most likely 
they were absorbed by the other tribes on the upper Rio del Fuerte. 
Therefore Hervas's identification of the Sinaloas with the Yaquis is an 
evident mistake, as Orozco y Berra points out. As to the application 
of the name Cinaloa by Ribas to the Rio del Fuerte there is this 
evidence. Alegre (i, 230) says — 

El Zuague, a cuya rivera austral estuvo en otro tiempo la villa de S. Juan Bautista 
de Carapoa, que despues fabricado el fuerte de Montesclaros, se Uamo Rio del Fuerte, 
y el padre Andres Perez [Ribas] llama por antonomasia el rio de Sinaloa. 

The geographical position as given by Ribas is sufficient without 
any other evidence to show that he used the name Cinaloa to desig- 
nate the Rio del Fuerte and not the stream which now bears the 
name Sinaloa. No th withstanding this and abundant other evidence 
that the Yaqui and the Mayo resided on the rivers that bear their 
respective names, and the Tehueco and Zuaque on the Fuerte river, 
Bancroft (i, 608) says, "The Zuaques have their villages between the 
Mayo and Yaqui rivers/ ' and so locates them on his map (471). 
Possibly he refers to a more recent date, though apparently not. 
Hamy, probably by mistake, places on his map the " Hiaquis" on 
the Rio Mayo and the Mayo on the Rio del Fuerte. 

That the Yaqui, Mayo, and Tehueco spoke dialects of the same 
language is now well known from historical evidence, vocabularies, etc. 
However, the following proof from older writers is added: "La nacion 
Hiaqui .y por consecuencia la Mayo y del Fuerte . . . que en la 
sustancia son una misma y de una propria lengua" (Cancio, 2: 246), 
"Est a tribu [Mayos] es de la misma raza que la del Yaqui, y solo se 
distingue por el titulo de su rio. Su idioma [Mayo and Yaqui] por 
consiguiente es el mismo, con la diferencia de unas cuantas voces" 
(Velasco, 1:302). Pimentel (i, 485) says the "Cahita" language is 
divided into three principal dialects — Mayo, Yaqui, and Tehueco; 



14 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[BULL. 44 



the others are secondary. Consult also Orozco y Berra (1:35); Buelna 

(x.), et al. 

Investigation has failed to disclose how or why the name Cahita 
came into use, and why it was so seldom applied until in compara- 
tively recent times. Even Hervas's work, which was published in 
the year 1800, makes no mention of it. Yet it must have been known 
early in the seventeenth century as the Arte de la Lengua Cahita 
por un Padre de la Compania de Jesus, republished by Buelna in 
1891, and believed to have been written by Juan Bautista de Ve- 
lasco (born 1562, died 1649), mentions it and entitles his "Arte" 
as that of the " Lengua Cahita." In his preface he says, "Toda 
esta usa de un mismo idioma, los Hiaquis, los Mayos y los Thehue- 
cos, pero se diferencian en el modo." Juan Ortiz Zapata (393) uses 
the name (see below). 

The lingustic relation of the Mayo to the tribes on the Sinaloa 
was noticed by the first Spanish explorers of this region, as the fact 
is expressly mentioned in the Segunda Relacion of the journey 
of Nuno de Guzman. 1 While Ribas constantly joins together 
the Cinaloa, Zuaque, Tehueco, and Ahome of the Rio del Fuerte, 
and speaks of their similarity in customs, no reference to the rela- 
tion of the language of the Cinaloas to the other three tribes has 
been found in his work. Juan Ortiz Zapata (393), speaking of 
the mission or Partido de la Concepcion de Vaca, says it was on 
the banks of the "Carapoa" and that its natives spoke the Cahita 
language — "la lengua es caita." Orozco y Berra (1:332) says that 
this mission (Vaca or Baca) pertained to the Sinaloas, and that 
the ancient villages of Carapoa, Savirijoa, and San Jose Charay 
corresponded to the "Tehuecos." . Hrdlicka (1:59) makes Baca- 
bach a Mayo settlement, which is given as a probable synonym 
of Baca (Vaca) in the Handbook of the American Indians, though 
most likely different, as Baca (Vaca) was on the Rio del Fuerte. 
That tribes along the river spoke languages allied to Yaqui and 
Mayo has been shown and is asserted by Ribas (237); this makes 
them dialects of the Yaqui group. But are Cinaloa, Zuaque, and 
Tehueco to be considered synonyms or names of different dialects? 
The earliest original authorities do not make this clear. 

Alegre (u, 10) contends that Zuaque and Tehueco are one and 
the same language — "de ser todos de una misma lengua." Buelna 
(x) says that Tehueco was the native and current idiom among 
the three indigenous tribes living on the banks of the Rio del 
Fuerte, the most northerly of those actually in the state of Sinaloa; 
the Sinaloa who inhabit the pueblos of Baca, Toro, and Sinaloita, 
on the river above the village of Fuerte; the Tehueco who lived in 
said village, previously called Carapoa, and in the pueblos of 



1 In Colec. Doc. Hist. Mex., n, 300; see Ieazbalceta in the Bibliography. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 15 

Tehueco, Sivirijoa, and Charay, below the same; and the Zuaque, who 
were established still lower down in the pueblos of Mochicahuy and 
San Miguel de Zuaque. He therefore makes Tehueco, Sinaloa, 
and Zuaque one and the same dialect, though different tribes or sub- 
tribes. Orozco y Berra makes Sinaloa and Cahita equivalent, or 
one and the same idiom, but distinct from Tehueco and Zuaque, 
which he considers identical. "The language which Ribas and some 
other missionaries and writers call Cinaloa, and which Hervas names 
Yaqui, is the idiom which properly is known as Cahita." Quoting 
from Balbi (table xxxn) the following — 

Cinaloa is spoken in the provinces of Cinaloa, of Hostimuri, and in the southern 
part of Sonora, in the intendency of that name. This language embraces three princi- 
pal dialects, quite different: the Zuaque, spoken in the southern part of the province 
of Sinaloa and in other places; the Mayo spoken along the Mayo river in Hostimuri 
and in Sonora* the Yaqui or Hiaqui, spoken along the Yaqui river in the province of 
Sonora — 

he adds (356) : 

We cannot agree with the greater part of these assertions. According to the gram- 
mar of this language, "no se llama Sinaloa sino Cahita," and contains three dialects 
[Mayo, Yaqui] and the Tehueco and also Zuaque which is used in Sinaloa by the 
Indians of the banks of the Rio del Fuerte. 

Doctor Brinton (3: 125) gives Tehueco, Zuaque, Mayo, and Yaqui 
as subtribes of the Cahita, but omits the Zuaque from his list (3: 134). 
In the midst of this confusion it is the author's conclusion that per- 
haps Orozco y Berra is nearest right in identifying Zuaque and 
Tehueco as one and the same dialect, though distinct tribes. 

Orozco y Berra (1:35) says that about the mouth of the Rio del 
Fuerte were the Ahome, and along the coast south of it were the 
Vacoregue, the "Batucari, the Comopori, and the Guazave: of the 
same family and idiom as the Cahita, the chief dialect being that 
named Guazave or Vacoregue. (Care must be taken to distingush 
between Comuripa (or Comoripa) of the Pima group and Como- 
pori of the Yaqui group.) He says Balbi conjectures that Ahome 
and Comopori were quite diverse, or tongues related to Gua- 
zave. This he declares is not exact, as all these pueblos spoke the 
same idiom, and there was no particular Ahome or Comopori. 
In his classification (1:58) he gives Vacoregue and Guazave as 
synonymous and as spoken by the Vacoregue, Guazave, Ahome, 
Batucari, Comopori, and Zuaque. The introduction of the last 
name here must be a mistake, as in his classification (1: 58) 
he places it under Tehueco; possibly it refers here to a few Zuaque 
who lived among the V acoregue and adopted their language. This 
author appears to have worked this out by taking up the scat- 
tered statements of the original authorities in regard to the lan- 
guages spoken in the different pueblos and missions, which it is not 



16 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



necessary to give in this preliminary sketch. It may be stated, 
however, that Kibas (145) says the language of the Ahome was 
the same as that of the Guazave, and different from that of the 
Zoe (which is referred to farther on). Hervas (320) says the Ahome 
spoke a dialect of Hiaqui (he uses this name Hiaqui as equivalent 
to Cinaloa; see Orozco y Berra, 1: 34), and the same as that spoken 
by the Guazave. Ribas (153) says the Comopori spoke the same 
language as the Ahome. Brinton is therefore in error in uniting 
the Ahome with the Pima, as they and the other pueblos mentioned 
in this connection, except Zuaque, spoke the Vacoregue dialect. 

The names Oguera (Ohuera), Cahuimeto, and Nio, denoting three 
dialects marked by Orozco y Berra on his map, along the southern 
border of the Cahita territory, near the Vacoregue, are placed in his 
list of extinct idioms (1:61). Comopori indicates a supposed sub- 
tribe, but is not represented on his map. Chicorata and Basopa 
are given in his list of languages, and are mentioned (1:334) as on 
the Sinaloa river 7 leagues east of Ohuera; their languages are dis- 
tinct and the two peoples speak "el Mexicano." 

Of the Comopori, Orozco y Berra speaks as follows (1:35) : 

About the embouchure of the Rio del Fuerte live the Ahomes, aud thence toward 
the south along the coast the Yacoregues, Batucaris, Cornoporis, and the Guazaves; 
of the same family of the Cahitas, the idiom, the dialect of the principal one, named 
the Guazave or Vacoregue. Balbi conjectures that the Ahome and the Comopori are 
very diverse dialects or sister languages of the Guazave. This is not correct; all the 
pueblos spoke the same idiom, and there was no particular Ahome or Comopori. 

This disposes of Comopori. As the Ahome spoke the same lan- 
guage as the Vacoregue and Guazave, the last two, so far as language 
is concerned, are, in fact, synonymous terms. 

Cahuimeto and Ohuera are placed by Orozco y Berra in his list of 
extinct languages. His evidence for considering these as distinct 
and as once spoken in the area he has marked on his map appears 
to have been obtained chiefly from Zapata (407). However, Orozco 
y Berra makes a mistake in his notes (1:334), referring to Ribas. 1 
It is there stated that six or seven leagues southeast of the pueblo 
of Sinaloa was the pueblo of Ohuera, in which and in the vicinity 
thereof were spoken two languages, "distintas," called Cahuimeto 
and Ohuera, though at the time Zapata wrote (1678) the Mexican 
(Aztec) language had already come into general use, ultimately, as we 
may suppose, displacing them, as they appear to have been extinct when 
Orozco y Berra wrote his Geografia (1857-1863), and also probably 
when Alegre wrote his Historia (1766-1773), as he makes no mention 
of them, though he speaks of missions and Indians of the region re- 
ferred to. As they resided on the Sinaloa (not Rio del Fuerte, but Sin- 
aloa of modern maps) and along the southeastern border of the Cahita 



1 The pages he cites are those of Doc. Hist. Mex., 4th ser., m. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 1? 

territory of Orozco y Berra's map, where it abuts on the Mexican 
(Aztec) territory, the two languages, which seem to have been cog- 
nate, may have been, and in all probability were, idioms of the 
Yaqui group. Although the evidence on this point is not positive, 
they were probably in the territory of the Yaqui group. 

Orozco y Berra seems to be justified by the evidence in placing 
Nio on his map as a distinct idiom, though extinct. It is stated by 
Zapata (404-405) that a league and a half northeast of San Pedro 
Guazave was the pueblo of San Ignacio de Nio, in which the language 
spoken was " particular," called Nio, though Mexican was also in 
common use. The only subsequent mention found is that by Alegre 
(i, 294), who states that Padre Mendez commended the pueblos and 
languages of the Ocoroiri [Ocoroni], Nio, and some others which he 
had held, to the charge of Padre Tapia. This evidence, though direct, 
is somewhat slender, yet the name has been placed within the Cahita 
territory on the map accompanying this volume, surrounded, how- 
ever, with a narrow line. 

The evidence in regard to Basopa, which Orozco y Berra places in 
his list of languages, is very meager, the only notice, so far as known, 
being the statement by Zapata (408) to the effect that five leagues 
to the north [of Concepcion de Chicorato] is the pueblo of San Ignacio 
deChicuris. "The language is in part Tepehuana and in part Basopa, 
which is that which is commonly spoken." Zapata says, further, 
(407) that in Concepcion de Chicorato the natives are divided into 
two parties which speak distinct languages, "the Chicurata, and 
the Basopa." This appears to be the only authority on which Orozco 
y Berra bases the introduction of these two names into his list of lan- 
guages. Both are extinct. 

ZOE AND TEPAHUE 

Zoe and Baimena, both extinct languages, can best be considered 
together, as it seems they were related. 

The Zoe occupied a limited region on the eastern border of the 
territory of the Yaqui group, on the headwaters of the Rio del Fuerte 
adjoining the Tubar area. The tribe was a small one, speaking a 
language of its own. The Baimena, who joined them on the south, 
probably spoke a dialect of the same tongue. Ribas (208) says the 
Zoe were mountain Indians, residing about the headwaters of the 
Rio Sinaloa (del Fuerte) in the skirts of the sierra, and spoke 
a language different from that of the Sinaloas. He also states, 
page 145 ("tienen tambien amistad los Ahomes, y parentesco, y 
son de la misma lengua con los Guacaues"), that they maintained 
friendly relations with the Ahome, and were related to and spoke 
the same language as the Guazave, who, as has been shown above, 
were related to the Yaqui group and spoke a dialect of their lan- 



18 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



guage. Ribas also (145) mentions a tradition that this tribe came 
from the north with the Ahome, and, although speaking a different 
language and occupying localities widely separated, maintained con- 
stant friendship. As the language was still spoken as late as 1678, 
after the missionaries had established themselves in that section, and 
probably obtained this tradition from them, it is possibly reliable. 

According to Zapata (396), the Baimena (or Baitrena, as the name 
appears there) occupied the pueblo of Santa Catalina de Baitrena, 
situated some six leagues southeast of San Jose del Toro, the head of 
the partido, and spoke a language somewhat different from that of 
the Troe (Zoe). The latter resided in a neighboring pueblo bearing 
their own name and, like that of the Baimena, bordering the Tubar 
("coufman tambien con los Tubares"). The padre who ministered 
to these pueblos at the time Ribas wrote (1617-1640) was Jose de 
Tapia. 

The evidence appears to warrant, therefore, in the absence of vocabu- 
laries, the acceptance of Zoe as a distinct idiom and Baimena as identi- 
cal or closely related to it. There is, perhaps, justification for consid- 
ering both as dialects of the Yaqui group, or at least Nahuatlan, and 
they are so marked in the List of Linguistic Families and Tribes. 
Their area is designated on the map accompanying this paper. 

The territory in which the Tepahue (Tepave), Conicari, and 
Macoyahui dialects are said to have been spoken is situated on the 
northern border of the territory of the Yaqui group where it meets 
that of the Lower Pima and the Tarahumare. 

According to Zapata (385), the language spoken in the pueblo of 
Asuncion de Tepave (Tepaue or Tepahue), situated five leagues north- 
east of Conicari, was "particular," and was known as "Tepave" 
(Tepahue) ; this was different from that of the other pueblos (Conicari 
and Macoyahui), though the latter people understood the Tepahue 
tongue and also that of the Yaqui group, but did not speak it. All 
three dialects are included by Orozco y Berra in the territory he 
marks "Tepahue" on his map, in the fork of the upper Mayo river. 
Ribas (253) speaks of them as friends of the Tehueco, and adds (265) 
that the pueblo of Conicari was distant from Chinipa sixteen leagues 
[west]. Zapata (384) says that the language spoken at this peublo 
is "particular," but that some of the inhabitants are Mayo "en la 
naciony en la lengua." 

The pueblo of Asuncion de Macoyahui, in which the Macoyahui lan- 
guage was spoken, was situated about seven leagues north of Conicari 
(Zapata, 386), though Orozco y Berra on his map places it west of 
the latter pueblo. The language, according to Zapata, was "particu- 
lar" — "la lengua es particular macoyahui con que son tres las lenguas 
de este partido" — these are Conicari, Tepahue, and Macoyahui. 
Although they were extinct at the time Orozco y Berra wrote his 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 19 

Geografla (about 1860), they were in existence and use at the time 
Zapata wrote his Kelacion (1678). The Macoyahui were also known 
by the names Cue and Tecayagui. It is safe, perhaps, to assume 
that these languages were related to one another, though this is not 
stated, nor is there anything on record, so far as ascertained, by which 
to determine whether they were related to any language of the sur- 
rounding tribes. The only indications given on this point are that 
the Tepahue were friends of the Tehueco, and that some of the 
inhabitants of Conicari were of the Mayo tribe. These facts suggest 
relationship to the Yaqui group. 

Tepehuane 

{Synonym: Tepeguane) 

The Tepehuane occupied the country mainly in Durango, imme- 
diately south of the Tarahumare, chiefly on the eastern slope of the 
Sierra Madre, from the twenty-fourth nearly to the twenty-seventh 
degree of north latitude. Arlegui (187) says it extended from the 
Sierra delMezquital up to the Parral. According to Alegre (i, 319) it 
extended from a little less than the twenty-fifth to the twenty- 
seventh degree of north latitude, touching the Tarahumare region 
at the north. 

The language does not appear to have been divided into any well- 
marked dialects. Pimentel (n, 63) says it consisted of various 
dialects, but the differences seem to have been too slight to receive 
any special notice. Orozco y Berra mentions none. It is possible 
that Acaxee and cognate idioms were related to it. 

Acaxee 

For the reasons given below, it has been decided to bring together 
under this tribal heading the four following names, which 
Orozco y Berra and other writers have treated as those of separate 
tribes, namely, Acaxee, Jijime (Xixime), Tebaca, and Sabaibo. 

The four small tribes, or so-called tribes, speaking these languages 
formed a connected group surrounded on the north, east, and south- 
east by the Tepehuane and on the west and southwest by the exten- 
sion of the Mexican group northward along the western coast. Their 
country lay chiefly in the high and rugged sierras. There seems to 
be little or no doubt, from the evidence given below, that they spoke 
closely related dialects, some so-called dialects, however, being 
apparently identical. It also appears that in addition to their native 
dialects, spoken among themselves, all used the Mexican language in 
their intercourse with others. 1 



1 The term "Mexican," as used here and elsewhere inthis paper when referring to language, is to be under- 
stood in the sense in which Orozco y Berra uses the term " Mexicano; " that is to say, it includes the central 
or strictly Nahuatl or Aztec group, 1<he particular dialect of this northward extension being unknown. 



20 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



Ribas says (491) the Sabaibo spoke the same language as the 
Acaxee, and that the Jijimes also spoke the same language (522). 
Alegre says (i, 422) the Sabaibo, though a distinct nation, spoke the 
same idiom as the Acaxee. Zapata (414-416), speaking of the mis- 
sions in the Partido de San Martin de Atotonilco, says Tebaca was 
spoken in some and Acaxee in others when talking among themselves, 
but that all used the Mexican language. Orozco y Berra (1 : 334) 
asserts the same thing, and states also on the same page that Tebaca 
was distinct from Acaxee, but related to it. On the whole he seems 
to place all these dialects in his "Mexicano" (1 : 12-13), or at least 
includes the people in the Mexican (Nahuatlan) family in the limited 
sense of his classification. It is true that, in the paragraph indicated, 
he refers only to Acaxee, yet, as he holds that the other three are 
related to it, all must be classed together. 

Hervas (on what ground does not appear) says that the Jijime 
language, which is spoken in the province of Topia, appears to be 
different from Acaxee (330), "and consequently from the other dia- 
lects of the Zacateco." This would imply that Acaxee and other 
allied idioms, exclusive of Jijime, were dialects of the Zacateco lan- 
guage. Referring to this supposition on the part of Hervas, Orozco y 
Berra (1 : 13) states that it is unsupported by any works he has 
examined. 

As Acaxee appears to be the most important of these idioms, it is 
concluded best to depart from Orozco y Berra's plan to the extent of 
including the entire group under this name and to mark the area 
occupied by them accordingly. 

Several other so-called tribes or "naciones" are mentioned as re- 
siding in the immediate region now under consideration, as the 
Papudo, Tecaya, Vaimoa (or Baimoa), Topia, Hina, and Hume. The 
first three appear to have been considered by Orozco y Berra (1:319) 
as but mere divisions of the Acaxee, and the last two (1:320) as divi- 
sions of the Jijime. Alegre (i, 379-380) mentions the "Papudos" and 
"Tecayas" as belonging to the mission of San Andres (Topia), but 
says nothing in regard to their language. Turning to Zapata (306), 
the statement is found that the pueblos of this mission spoke various 
languages', some Sabaibo, some Acaxee ("Aiage"), and others Jijime, 
but no mention is made of Papudo, Tecaya, or Vaimoa (Baimoa). 
As there does not appear to be any other evidence on this point, 
these three names — Papudo, Tecaya, and Vaimoa — may be dismissed 
as not denoting idioms. 

Orozco y Berra makes Topia a synonym of Acaxee. In this he 
seems to be substantially correct, as it appears to be a geographical 
term designating the section in which the Acaxee were chiefly lo- 
cated. Ribas (531) says the Acaxee nation was the principal (head) of 
the two missions of Topia and San Andres. Hervas (327) speaks of 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 21 

Topia as another language or dialect of the group, which idea Vater 
has carried into his Mithridates (in, pt. 3, 138-139), though admitting 
relationship with Acaxee. Balbi makes it distinct from the latter; 
but Orozco y Berra (1:319) differs wholly from this opinion, con- 
sidering the two as the same language. He quotes (1:314) manu- 
script authority showing Topia to be merely the name of a province 
or district. 

Ahumada (96), writing in 1608, makes the Hume a "nacion" 
distinct from the Jijime, though speaking the same language. Ribas 
(562) says these Indians inhabit the highest part of the sierra as 
one goes eastward. Alegre (n, 199) also calls the Hume a "nacion" 
and says the name was given to them from the configuration of the 
natural defenses of their country. Hervas (327) expresses the opinion 
that the Hume (Huime, as he writes it) were related to the Jijime. 
Orozco y Berra also holds that both the Hume and Hina were related 
to, or rather were offshoots of, the Jijime. 

Alegre, speaking of the Hina (n, 195), says they inhabited the most 
profound breaks (" profundisimas quebradas") of the center of the 
sierra and the margin of the Rio Piaztla, and spoke a diverse lan- 
guage. Notwithstanding this evidence, Orozco y Berra, who per- 
haps had additional data, although recognizing the Hume and the 
Hina as separate or distinct peoples, and giving them in his list of 
tribes, omits them from his list of languages, thereby expressing his 
belief that they did not speak distinct idioms. It is considered 
safest to follow his example. 

In this connection it may be as well to refer to the Huite. Ribas 
(207) says their language was different from that of the Cinaloa (Ya- 
qui group). Orozco y Berra (1:333) says they were a warlike tribe, 
at open strife with all their neighbors, and were anthropophagi. 
Their location was in the sierra, about " seven leagues from the Sina- 
loas." He adds that the name, which signifies " arrow" in Cahita, indi- 
cates relationship of idiom to this language. Although he gives the 
name in his list of languages, he omits it from the classification, map, 
and extinct idioms. It has been omitted from the classified list in 
this paper, and from the map, but with some doubt. 

Cora 

(Synonyms: Chora, Chota, Nayarita) 

The people speaking this language live in the Sierra de Nayarit 
and on the Rio de Jesus Maria, in the state of Jalisco. They are the 
most southerly tribe of what may be termed the Sonoran group of 
the Nahuatlan family. 

Orozco y Berra, whose mapping is followed substantially in refer- 
ence to the Cora territory, has marked this area according to the best 



22 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



early authorities, most of them in manuscript documents. Reference 
is made, however, to other authorities treating of the subject. 

Alegre, after referring to the rugged, mountainous character of the 
district, says (m, 196) it joins on the east Nueva-Vizcaya, and on the 
north, west, and south Nueva-Galicia, extending from 22° to 23° 
N. lat. Pimentel simply says the people lived in the Sierra de Nayarit 
but is more specific in relation to the subdivisions of the tribe men- 
tioned below. Orozco y Berra (1:279) says that, according to Mota 
Padilla (510), the area was included between 21° and 23° N. lat. and 
261° and 265° longitude; and according to Revillagigedo, between 
21° and 24° N. lat. and 266° and 269° a de long, del meridiano de 
Tenerife." Following the chart of Narvaez, he concludes the extent 
to be between 21° 20' and 23° N. lat. and 5° and 6° W. long, from 
the meridian of Mexico City. 

Joseph de Ortega, whose Vocabulario en Lengua Castellana y 
Cora was first published in 1732, says (p. 7, reprint of 1888) that 
this language consisted of three dialects: Muutzicat, spoken by 
those living in the center of the sierra; Teacuacitzica, spoken by 
those living in the lower parts of the sierra toward the west; and 
Ateanaca (sometimes contracted to Ate) spoken by the Ateacari living 
on the banks of the Rio Nayarit. He considers the last as the Cora 
proper. However, the differences were so slight that subsequent 
writers do not appear to have considered them dialects representing 
subtribal distinctions. Orozco y Berra (1 : 281-282) includes the Cora 
in his Opata-Tarahumar-Pima family, and gives as divisions the 
Cora proper, Nayarit, Tecualme, Gecualme, and Colotlan. Nayarit, 
the name the people applied to themselves, is merely a synonym of 
Cora. Although Tecualme and Gecualme are included by Orozco y 
Berra in his list of languages, there is no evidence that they indicate 
dialectic divisions. Moreover, he gives them (1:280) as synonymous. 
(For Colotlan, see Tepecano, etc., below.) 

Huichol 

(Synonym: Guichola) 

A tribe, formerly counted as a sub tribe or division of the Cora of 
Jalisco, living in the rugged sierras on the east of the Cora, by whose 
territory they are surrounded on the north, west, and south, the 
Tepecano joining them on the east. Their language is closely 
related to the Cora, causing some early authorities to classify them 
as a division of the latter; but recent investigations, chiefly by 
Hrdlicka, have led to the conclusion that they are more closely 
related to the Guachichile than to the Cora, and are apparently an 
offshoot of that tribe. This confirms the suggestion thrown out by 
Orozco y Berra (1: 282), "que los Huicholas son los restos de los anti- 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 23 

guos CuacMcJiiles " a suggestion which he says he neither accepts nor 
contradicts. As they are separated from the parent tribe by the 
intervening Zacateco, they are given a distinct area on the accom- 
panying map, with the same number as the Guachichiles. 

Tepecano, Teule, Cazcan, Tecuexe 

Orozco y Berra places on his map, to the east and the southeast of 
the Cora, tribes or supposed tribes speaking these and some other 
dialects (Coloclan and Coca). As there is considerable doubt in 
regard to the existence of others of these tribes and dialects and to the 
linguistic relations of some of them, it is necessary to examine some- 
what closely the meager data regarding them. 

Of these, Coloclan may, so far as the name is concerned, be dis- 
missed from consideration as it is nowhere mentioned in his work. 
It was evidently intended for "Colotlan" (also given incorrectly by 
Bancroft, i, 672, as "Cocotlanes"), as it occupies precisely the posi- 
tion given to Colotlan in the text. Colotlan, it seems, may also be 
dismissed, as Orozco y Berra (2:644), though locating it on his map 
(as " Coloclan") south of the Tepecano area and along the eastern 
boundary of the Cora territory, identifies it with Tepecano. Colotlan 
is marked on his map as a pueblo in the Tepecano -district and is given 
by Doctor Hrdlicka (2:399-402) as in the Tepecano area. It would 
appear safe from this evidence, which has been gathered from the 
early statements of the missionaries, to assume that Colotlan and 
Tepecano were one and the same idiom. As this writer classifies 
Colotlan as a dialect of Cora (Orozco y Berra, 1:282), this, if correct, 
would bring Tepecano into the same relation, but Doctor Hrdlicka 
has become convinced by recent investigations made in the section 
that the Tepecano were most closely related to the Tepehuane, and 
he gives a brief vocabulary as confirming this opinion (2:419-425). 
Tepecano is given substantially the same area on the accompanying 
map as on Orozco y Berra's map. 

Coca is extinct if, in fact, it ever existed as a distinct idiom. It 
could not have been very different from Tecuexe if we judge by the 
slight notices left on record in regard to 'it; in fact Orozco y Berra 
includes the two in one area on his map. This leaves for considera- 
tion of this group of small tribes, or subtribes, so far as mapped by 
the writer quoted, the Teule, Cazcan, and Tecuexe. 

Very little mention of the tribes speaking these languages has 
been left on record. Doctor Hrdlicka says the Cazcanes occupied 
the land from the "Rio Grande" (Rio Santiago), bordering on 
the Tepecanos and Tecuexes. Herrera (n, dec. 4, 197) says 
merely that they are a nation which inhabit as far as the border of 
the Zacatecos,'and that their speech is different from that of the 
Mexicans, although the Mexican language had extended into all 



24 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



that region. Antonio Tello 1 refers to the Cazcan of Teul, Tlalte- 
nango, and Xuchipila. It is somewhat singular that Arlegui, who 
gives a list of the "naciones" of this section (148-149), omits the 
name of the Cazcan, though mentioning the Cora, Nayarita (?), and 
Tepecano. 

Orozco y Berra says (1: 279) that the Teule, or, as he terms them, 
"Teules Chichimecas/' used the same idiom as the Tepecano. He 
bases this opinion on a statement in documents in the Archivo 
General. Romero Gil (491, 499) says that the Cazcanes, whom he 
terms " Cazcanes Chichimecas," were Zacatecos, and suggests that the 
Tecuexes were a Mexican colony. In the article cited above Hrdlicka 
(428) mentions the living remnant of the " Teul-Chichimecs " he 
found in two old villages near Teul. 

Names of Tribes in Northwestern Mexico not Considered 

Separately 

as given by orozco y berra and other writers 

Names of tribes or supposed tribes or subtribes which are men- 
tioned by Spanish writers as "naciones" in what are now the states 
of Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Durango, and Jalisco, or that area 
included on Orozco y Berra's map in the Concho, Tepehuan, and 
Acaxee areas, and the part of Mexico northwest thereof, which are 
not separately discussed in this volume, are as follows : 



Ahomes 


Cahiguas 


Cues (los Tecayaguis) 


Aibinos 


*Cajuenches 


Cunai 


Alchedomas 


Canceres 


Cutecos 


Ancavistis 


Carlanes 


Cutganes 


Anchanes 


Chafalotes 


Echunticas 


Arigames 


Changuaguanes 


*Faraones 


Ateacari 


Chemeguabas 


Gecuiehes 


*Ateanaca 


*Chemegues 


Genicuiches 


Babispe (Bap'ispe) [on 


Chemeguet 


Gilenos (los Xilenos) 


map] 


*Chicorato 


Gojoles 


Babos 


Chicuras 


Gozopas 


Bacabaches 


*Chinarras 


Guaicaniaopas 


Bacapas 


*Chinipas 


Guailopos 


Bagiopas 


Chiricaguis 


Guazarachis 


Baimoas (or Vairnoas) 


Chiros 


Hichucios 


Bamoas 


Chizos 


Himeris 


Baquiobas 


*Cocas 


Hinas 


Basiroas 


Coclamas 


Hios 


*Basopas 


Cocobiptas 


Hizos 


Batucaris 


Cogiiinachis 


Hudcoadanes 


Batucos 


Comoporis 


*Huites 


*Baturoques 


Comuripas 


Humas (los Chinarras) 


Bayacatos 


Conejos 


Humes 


Biaras 


Contlas 


Husorones 


*Cacaris 


Cuampes 


Huvagueres 



i In Colec. Doc. Hist. Mex., n, 376: see Icazbalceta, in the Bibliography. 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 25 



Jalchedunes 


Pajalames 


Tecargonis 


Jallicuamai 


Panana 


Tecayaguis [see Cues] 


Jagullapais 


Papudos 


Tecayas 


Jamajabs 


Pasalmes 


Tecoripas 


Janos 


Payuchas 


Tecuatzilzisti 


Jocomis 


Paxuchis 


*Tegiiima (el Opata) 


Jumanes 


Piatos 


Tegiiis 


Llamparicas 


*Piros 


Tehatas 


Maguiaquis 


Poarames 


Tehuizos 


Mammites 


Polames 


Temoris 


Matapanes 


Pulicas 


Teparantanas 


Mejuos 


*Putimas 


Tiburones 


Mezcaleros 


Quemeya 


Tintis 


Mimbrenos 


Quicamopas 


*Tlaxomultecas 


Movas 


Quihuimas, los Quiquimas 


Tochos 


Muares 


Quiquimas 


Tontos 


*Muutzizti [Muutzicat] 


Salineros 


Torames 


Navajoas 


Sibubapas 


Vaimoas 


Navajos 


Sisibotaris 


*Vayemas 


Nures 


Sisimbres 


Xicarillas 


Oaboponomas 


Sivolos 


Xilenos [see Gilenos] 


*Ocoronis 


*Sobaipuris 


*Yavipais, los Apaches 


Onavas 


Sovas 


Yecoratos 


Opas 


Sumas 


Yuanes [Cuhana los Cucapa[ 


Oposines 


Supis 


*Yutas 


Ore j ones 


*Tahue 


Zayahuecos 


Oronihuatos 


Tapacolmes 


Zuaques, el Tehueco 


Otaquitamones 


*Teacuacitzisti 





LANGUAGES FROM OROZCO Y BERRA WITHOUT TRIBAL NAMES 

*Mediotaguel *Pacasa 



TRIBAL NAMES FROM OTHER AUTHORITIES 

Buasdabas Nacameris Nacosuras 

Cumupas 

This area is thus marked off from the rest of Mexico because these 
supposed "naciones" were included therein by the writers who 
mention them, though in some cases erroneously, according to the 
boundaries of the present day. 

There are several reasons why none of these names have been 
recognized on the map, some of which are given in the notes following. 
In some instances the names have reference to villages in which the 
language spoken was one already mentioned, and marked on the 
map. In other cases there is no evidence that the people named 
spoke a distinct language or dialect. In some instances in which it is 
stated the dialect was distinct, it is impossible, from the evidence, to 
classify it or to determine that it should be placed in the list of real 
unclassified languages. The first and largest portion of the names 
is from Orozco y Berra's list of tribes (1: 67-76); the second portion 
is from his list of languages (1:62-66), for which he presents no 
tribal names, while the third part contains tribal names not mentioned 
8347°— Bull. 44—11 3 



26 



BUKEAU OF AMEKICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



by him, but have been taken from other authors. The names to 
which the asterisk (*) is prefixed are those which correspond with 
names in his list of languages. This shows that the tribes not so 
indicated in his list of tribes were not considered by him as speaking 
distinct idioms. 

If his conclusion be accepted without reserve, so far as the present 
investigation is concerned all the names in his list of tribes having 
no corresponding name in his list of languages may as well be ex- 
cluded, but this would leave the whole subject to his judgment with- 
out investigation. It is proper first to ascertain how many names 
can be eliminated from the list as duplicates, or are otherwise clearly 
erroneously given, and also those already considered in the preceding 
notes. 

Those of this list which have been noticed in the preceding notes, 
and a conclusion reached in regard thereto, are as follows (retaining 
the names as written therein) : 



Ahomes Comoporis Salineros 

Aibinos Comuripas Teacuacitzica 

Ateanaca Hinas Tecayas 

Basopas Huites Tecoripas 

Batucaris Humes Teguimas (Opatas Tegui- 

Chicoratas Movas mas) 

Chinipas Muutzicat Teguis (Opatas Teguis) 

Cocas Nures . Vaimoas (Baimoas) 
Coguinachis (Opata Coguin- Onavas 

achis) Papudos 

Those names which may be eliminated are as follows: 

Alchedomas Same as Jalchedunes; in California- Arizona; Yuman. 

Ancavistis A band or subdivision of the Faraon Apache. 

Anchanes A division of the Concho, speaking their language and living 

on the Rio Concho (Orozco y Berra, 1:325). 
Ateacari A division of the Cora; synonym of Ateanaca, which denotes 

the language. 

Bacabaches Orozco y Berra mentions the name in his list and refers to 

Sonora, but it is not found there. A Mayo settlement 
near Mayo river (?) using the Mayo language (Hrdlicka, 
1: 59). It is distinct from Baca. 

Bacapas . This name appears to have been given a place in Orozco y 

Berra's list without sufficient data in his text to justify its 
inclusion. A Papago rancheria. 

Bagiopas In California- Arizona. 

Baimoas See Vaimoas. 

Baquiobas In United States, same as Bagiopas. 

Basiroas A Lower Pima band. See Hios below. 

Batucos Given by Orozco y Berra (1:344) as a synonym of Eudeve, 

though in the Pvudo Ensayo (181 et seq.) it is alluded to as 
a pueblo. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 27 



Baturoques Merely mentioned by Orozco y Berra as an extinct tribe 

formerly living in Sonora. No particulars have been found. 
Probably a synonym of Batucaris. 

Bayacatos This name is given in Orozco y Berra's list with reference to 

Sinaloa, but it does not appear in the text. 

Biaris Orozco quotes this name from Alegre (i, 288), but this author, 

though mentioning the name, gives nothing by which to 
locate the people designated, nor anything in regard to their 
language. Probably the same as Biaras, a Tehueco settlement. 

Cacari Mentioned by Fernando Ramirez (Orozco y Berra, 1:319) as 

an extinct tribe formerly living in Cacaria, Durango. 

Cahiguas Faraon Apache (Orozco y Berra, 1:386), in northern Chi- 

huahua? (See article Kiowa, in Handbook of American 
Indians, pt. 1.) 

Canceres Given as belonging to the Faraon Apache in Chihuahua 

(Orozco y Berra, 1: 386). (See article Lipan, in Handbook 
of American Indians, pt. 1.) 

Carlanes A Jicarilla band on Arkansas river. Bandelier, Archseolog. 

Inst. Papers, v, 191. 

Coclamas Mentioned by Orozco y Berra (1:325) as near the Tobosos. 

No further information given. 

Cocobiptas Orozco y Berra refers to Chihuahua, but it is not found in the 

text under this heading, though it is given under Coahuila 
(1:306) as from a list in the manuscript of Revillagigedo. 
No locality given; possibly in Texas. No additional data. 

Conejos Mentioned by Orozco y Berra (1:327) as pertaining to the 

Concho; and (1:325) as being at the mission of Nuestra 
Serlora de Aranzazu. No further data. 

Contla Orozco y Berra (1:344) says merely it is stated that the in- 

habitants of Santa Cruz are of the "nacion Contla." Opata. 
As nothing further in regard to the name is found, it may 
be dismissed from consideration. 

Cuampes A division of the Faraon Apache. 

Cues See Tecayaguis. 

Cunai Given by Orozco y Berra as connected with the Cajuenche, a 

Yuman dialect apparently in the United States. Nothing 
further stated. See Cuneil in Handbook of American Indians. 

Cutganes The Cuchan, or Yuma, in the United States. 

Chafalotes Mentioned by Orozco y Berra (1:386) as a division or sub- 

tribe of the Apache; probably in Sonora. 

Changuaguanes Given by Orozco y Berra as belonging to the Faraon Apache. 

Ute. (See article Alcanaquint, in Handbook of American 
Indians, pt. 1.) 

Chemeguabas In southern California, probably a part of or a synonym for 

the Chemehuevi. (See Garces, 230-352, especially 351.) 

Chemegues Synonym of Chemehuevi. 

Chemeguet Synonym of Chemehuevi. 

Chicuras Orozco y Berra gives the name (properly Cicuris) in his list. 

This is found (by reference to Doc. Hist. Mex., 4th s., m, . 

408 — Orozco y Berra's reference to Ribas is an error) to be 

merely the name of a pueblo, the language being partly 

Tepehuan and partly Basopan. 
Chiricaguis Name given to an important subtribe (Chiricahua) of the 

Apache, north of the international boundary. 



28 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 44 

Chiros Orozco y Berra gives this name in his list and refers to Chihua- 

hua, but does not mention it under this heading. However, 
he gives ( 1 :325) , as apparently near the Toboso, the following : 
Sisimbre, Chizo, Cocoyome, Coclama, Tocho, Chizo, Babo, 
and Xure. It is probable, as the name Chizos is repeated, 
one should be Chiros, the change being a misprint. Ban- 
croft (i, 610), in copying the list, omits one Chizos and 
does not give the name Chiros at any place. No further 
mention of it has been found. 



Chizos Xo information regarding this supposed tribe has been found 

other than that given under the last preceding name . 
Cutecos See Husorones, below. 

Echunticas Given as belonging to the Faraon Apache. (Given as a syn- 

onym of Kotsoteka, in Handbook of American Indians, 
pt. 1, 728.) 

Faraones A division or tribe of the Apache. 

Gecuiches In southern California; synonym of Shoshonean Kawia. (See 

Handbook of American Indians, pt. 1, 665.) 

Genicuiches Synonym of Serranos. (See Handbook of American Indians, 

pt. 2, 513.) 

Gilenos Synonym of Gila Apache, New Mexico. (See Handbook of 

American Indians, pt. 1, 492.) 
Gojoles Mentioned by Orozco y Berra (1:279) as in Jalisco near the 

Tepecano. Xo additional information found. Possibly a 

synonym of Huichol. 

Gozopas Orozco y Berra gives this name in his list and refers to Sinaloa, 

but it is not mentioned under that head. It is probably a 
synonym of Guazave as Ribas (211), to whom he refers on 
the page on which he mentions Guazave, gives "Gozaua." 1 

Guaicamaopas This name is given in Orozco y Berra's list with reference to 

Sonora, but is not found under that heading; however, 
it is in his classification, under "Yuma'"' (1:59). It is 
probably a synonym of Yacum. a Diegueno tribe, California. 
(See Handbook of American Indians, pt. 2, 982.) 

Guailopos Orozco y Berra gives this name in his list, and in his text 



(1:324). He says, "En San Andres Chinipas vivian los 
Chinipas, a que se agregaron los Guailopos y Maguiaquis," 
referring in a note to "Cuarta serie de documentos [Doc. 
Hist. Mex.]. tomo III, pag. 386 ysiguientes." In the latter, 
the only reference found (387) approximating the state- 
ment in the text is that in the Partido -de Santa Ines de 
Chinipa the language is called ''Chinipa o Guaropaque." 
Xo San Andres Chinipa is mentioned, but a "San Andres 
de Conicarr ' (384) is given. Orozco y Berra (1: 326) places 
the language in question under, and as included in, Yarohio, 
as he does also Maguiaquis. As it is not given a place in 
his list of languages, it may be eliminated. 

Guazarachis This name is given by Orozco y Berra in his list with reference 

to Chihuahua. It is not found under that head, but is given 
(1:386) as a Faraon division. The Handbook of American 
Indians (pt. 1. 511) refers to Guazarachic as a Tarahumare 



1 Orozco y Berra's references at this point (1 :333) are erroneous, owing probably to typographical 
error. Note3, "pg. 211," folio-wing "2 CuartaSerie, "etc., should be "Ribas," and "4" and "5," referring 
to Ribas, properly refer to Doc. Hist. Mex., 4th ser., in. 



Thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 29 



settlement, and Guasarochic as a synonym. As it is not in- 
cluded in Orozco y Berra's list of languages it may be 
eliminated. 

Hichucios Orozco y Berra gives this ( 1 : 58, 335) as included under Tehueco, 

and as speaking the Tehueco dialect of the Cahita. 

Hizos The same author includes this under the Varohio and as 

speaking the same language, a dialect of Tarahumare. 

Hudcoadanes Name which seems to have been applied to a band of Yuma 

on the lower Colorado river, apparently north of, but near, 
the international boundary (Orozco y Berra, 1:353; Doc. 
Hist. Mex., 3d s., 554). Given as a synonym of Alchedoma 
in the Handbook of American Indians, pt. 1. 

Humas Another name for the Chinarra (Orozco y Berra, 1:69). 

Husorones, Cutecos... Pueblos or divisions of the Varohio, speaking the Varohio 
dialect. 

Huvagueres The only discovered reference to this group or band is by 



Orozco y Berra in his list and text (1:351) and Bancroft's 
quotation thereof. The former says, "Los Hios, a ocho 
leguas al Este de Tepahue, y los Huvagueres y los Tehuisos 
sus vecinos: masal Este seguian los Basiroas y los Tehatas." 
This would place them about the meeting point of the 
Lower Pima, Tarahumare, and Yaqui group areas. As 
Orozco y Berra does not include the name in his list of 
languages, it may .be omitted. Lower Pima. (See Basi- 
roas and Hios, p. 32.) 



Jalchedunes Mentioned by Francisco Garces (Doc. Hist. Mex., 2d s., i, 

346, 350) as a sub tribe of the Yuma. Same as Alchedoma. 
In the United States. 

Jallicuamai Given by Francisco Garces (248, 251, 346) as a Yuman 



tribe immediately north of the Cocopa on Colorado river^ 
partly north of the international boundary line. Orozco y 
Berra (1:353) places them with the Cajuenche, both speak- 
ing the same dialect, which was very near that of the Yuma 
proper. The Handbook of American Indians (pt. 2, 340) 
gives the name as a synonym of Quigyuma. 
Jagullapais [Jaqualla- Garces (309). The Walapai, a Yuman tribe north of the 



pais] boundary line. 

Janiajabs, Yamajabs, Mohave north of the international boundary line. 
Tamajabs. 

J-anos Given by Orozco y Berra (1:386) as the Faraon Apache in 

Chihuahua. Bandelier (Nation, July 2, 1885) also says 
they were Apache. 

Jacomis [Jocomes] An Apache tribe in Chihuahua. 

Jumanes [Jumanos] ... A tribe probably identical with a part of the Wichita, formerly 
living about the junction of the Concho with the Rio Grande. 

Llamparicas A division of the Comanche in the United States — synonym 

of Ditsakana (Handbook of American Indians, pt. 1, 393). 

Maguiaquis Given by Orozco y Berra (1: 326) as belonging to the Varohio, 



a subtribe of the Tarahumare. (See remarks under Guai- 
lopos, above.) 

Mammites (Mamites).. Given by Orozco y Berra as connected with the Concho 
(1 : 325, 327). As this author gives the name in his list of 
tribes and does not place it in his list of languages, it may be 
omitted; moreover, the Indians referred to, if the name be 
legitimate, were probably north of the boundary line. 



30 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 44 

Matapanes Orozco y Berra (1:335) connects these with the Tehueco 

division of the Yaqni group, but does not include the name 
in his list of languages. (See remarks under Biaris, above.) 

Mejuos Given by Orozco y Berra (1:327) in connection with the 



Concho. He says (1:325): "La tribu hablaba la lengua 
particular llamada Concha: mas no solo eran los Conchos 
quienes las componian, sino otra porcion de familias que 
usando el mismo idioma llevaban distintos nombres. Los 
primeros que se presentan son los Mejuos;" [etc.]. No au- 
thority has been discovered for this statement, which it 
seems he applies also to the Tapacolmes, Anchanes, Julimes, 
Cholomos, Mezquites, Caealotes, Oposines, Conejos, Po- 
lames, Sivolos, Puliquis, and Pasalmes. For the Mejuos 
he refers to Alegre (n, 58), but turning to the latter author 
we find he merely speaks of drawing into the mission at 
San Pedro "more than two hundred families of Conchos, 
Mejuos, and other nations." Orozco y Berra does not give 
the name Mejuos in his list of languages. 



Mezcaleros Faraon Apache, United States. 

Mimbrenos Apache in United States. 

Muares Faraon Apache. 

Navajoas Navaho in United States. 

Oaboponomas Given by Orozco y Berra (1:59) under Yuma. In United 

States (Doc. Hist, Mex., 4th s., i ; 349). Handbook of 
American Indians (pt. 1, 554) gives it as a synonym of 
Hoabonoma. 

Opas Yuman, in United States. Synonym or abbreviation of 

Maricopa. 

Oposines One of the names given by Orozco y Berra under Concho 

(1:55,327). (See remarks under Meju os, above.) 
Ore j ones Belong to Faraon Apache. 

Oronihuatos Given in Orozco y Berra's list with reference to Sinai oa, but 

it is not found under that head, nor elsewhere so far as dis- 
covered. Possibly a misprint. 

Otaquitamones Connected by Orozco y Berra (1:325) with the Concho. 

(See remarks under Mejuos, above.) 

Pajalames Same remark as under Otaquitamones. 

Panana Given by Orozco y Berra as connected with the Faraon Apache. 

The Handbook of American Indians (pt. 2, 216) gives it as 

a synonym of Pawnee. 
Pasalmes Found in the same connection as Pajalame, and is probably a 

synonym. 

Payuchas Paiute in United States. 

Pazuchis (Paxuchis). . Given as connected with the Faraon Apache, but are Paiute. 

Piatos Given by Orozco y Berra (1:58, 353) as an Upper Pima 

subtribe in Sonora. According to The Handbook of Amer- 
ican Indians (pt. 2, 241) a branch of the Papago. 

Poarames Given in connection with the Concho. (See remark under 

Mejuos, above.) 

Polames Same as Poarames, above. 

Pulicas (Puliques) Same as Poarames. 

Putimas Formerly in Sonora. Extinct; no particulars given. 

Quemeya Connected by Garces with the Cajuenche division of the 

Yuman family. In United States. 



Thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 31 



Quicamopas Yuman, in United States. 

Quiquimas Same as Quemeya. 

Sibubapas. This, according to Orozco y Berra (1:351), was the name 

given to the people of Suaqui, a Lower Pima pueblo. It 
is not included in his list of languages. 

Sisimbres Mentioned by Orozco y Berra (1 : 325) as living near the Tobo- 

sos. Not in his list of languages. No further notice found. 

Sivolos Mentioned in connection with the Concho (Orozco y Berra, 

1 : 327). Not identified; evidently distinct from the inhab- 
itants of the ancient Cibola, the ' ' province ' ' of Zuni in 
New Mexico. 

Sobaipures Part of the Upper Pima. In United States. (Maj. J. W. 

Powell in Seventh Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology, 

98). Bancroft makes two mistakes regarding these Indians. 

In vol. i, 603, he locates them among the Lower Pima, and 

in his general index (vol. v) he places them with the 

"Pueblos.". Extinct. 
Sobas (Sovas) Pima sub tribe included by Orozco y Berra in his list of tribes, 

but not in his list of languages. 
Supis Given by Orozco y Berra (1:386) erroneously as connected 

with the Faraon Apache. Abbreviation of Havasupai, 

Yuman, in United States. 
Tapacolmes Given by the same author (1:327) as connected with the 

Concho. Not included in his list of languages. 
Tecargonis A band or pueblo speaking the Varohio dialect (Orozco y 

Berra, 1:324). He refers in a note to the Doc. Hist. Mex., 

4th s., in, 386 et seq., but the name ib not found there. 
Tecayaguis Orozco y Berra (1 : 356) places these among the extinct peoples 



of Sonora, with the following remark: "En las vertientes del 
rio [Mayo], antes de los Tepahues, se encontraban los 
Tecayaguis, Cues 6 Macoyahuis, con su lengua particular 
el Macoyahuy." As this author does not include the name 
in his list of languages, it is probable that he intended by 
the above remark that the Tecayagui spoke the Macoyahui 
idiom. 



Tecayas Mentioned by Alegre (i, 379-380) as in Topia apparently as 

the people of a pueblo, probably of San Mateo Tecayas, 
and by Orozco y Berra (1:55, 319) as speaking the Acaxee 
language. As the name is not given in Orozco y Berra's 
list of languages and as nothing more is found recorded 
regarding them, they may be omitted. 

Tehatas Given by Orozco y Berra (1:58, 353) as a band or sub tribe of 

the Pima in Sonora, but not speaking a distinct idiom. 
• (See Basiroas, Hios, p. 32.) 

Tehuizos (Tehuisos). . See Huvagueres, above; also Basiroas, Hijos, p. 32. 

Teparantanas Orozco y Berra mentions (1:61, 75, 356) Teparantana as an 

extinct language of Sonora, without any particulars. 

Tintis Orozco y Berra (1:58, 324) mentions these Indians as con- 

nected with the Tubar and speaking their language, but 
does not give the name in his list of languages. 

Tochos Mentioned by Orozco y Berra as near the Toboso (1:325), 

and included in his list of tribes (1: 75), but there is noth- 
ing to indicate that they spoke a distinct idiom. 



32 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 44 

Tontos Apache in United States. 

Vaimoas (Baimoas) . . . The same is to be said as under Tecayas, except that these are 
not mentioned by Alegre at the place cited. 

Vayemas Orozco y Berra (1:338, 356) mentions Vayema as an extinct 

language of Sonora, but gives no intimation as to its rela- 
tionship or definite locality. 

Xicarillas The Jicarilla Apache, in United States. 

Xilenos (Gilenos) An Apache tribe, in United States. 

Yavipais A Yuman tribe, in United States. 

Yecoratos Given by Orozco y Berra (1:333) as in the Yaqui group. A 

synonym of Chicoratos. 

Yuanes Synonym of Cocopa. 

Yutas The Ute, in United States. 

Zayahuecos See Torames, p. 36. 

Having thus eliminated those names which, for the reasons given, 

it is unnecessary to discuss here, there remain to be considered the 
following: 

Arigames Humeris Sumas 

Babos Hios Tahues 

Batucos Ocoronis Temoris 

Cajuenches Piros Tiburones 



Coras (of Lower California) Sisibotaris Torames 
Chinarras 
Idioms: Mediotaguel, Pacasa. 

Also the list of names from other authors, as given above. 

Arigames These are connected by Orozco y Berra with the Conchos 

(1:55, 325), but without any statement as to locality. 
Arlegui (109-110) says the missions of the Conchos were 
visited daily by families from the north. It is probable 
that, through these, names of tribes, bands, etc., both 
within and outside of the Concho area, were obtained 
which has caused so many names to be connected with 
the Conchos. Orozco y Berra does not include the name 
in his list of languages. 

Babos Orozco y Berra (1: 325) gives this name in connection with 

the Toboso, but does not include it in his list of languages. 
As he states expressly that the supposed tribes, etc., 
named in this connection are believed to be related to the 
Apache, it is probable Babos was the name given to a band 
of Apache. It is somewhat singular that we find the Xure 
among them. He can not refer to the Nuri of the Lower 
Pima group. 

Bapispes (Babispe) Ribas (359); the inhabitants of the pueblo of Babispe, in 

the northeastern portion of the Opata territory. It seems 
they spoke Opata, though Ribas uses the term "nacion;" 
however, they were closely associated with the Potlapigua, 
a Piman tribe (Orozco y Berra, 1: 348), and also with the 
Batuco (q. v., p. 26). 

Basiroas, Hios (Ihios). The Hios, or Ihios as they are named by Ribas, are men- 
tioned several times by this author (215, 227, 255, 274), 
but usually in connection with the Guazapares, Varohios, 
Temoris, and Chinipas, always with one or more of them. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 33 



Orozco y Berra (1: 351) mentions them as Lower Pima in 
connection with the Huvagueres, Tehuisos, Basiroas, and 
Tehatas, "Los Hios, a ocho leguas al Este de Tepahue, y los 
Huvagueres y los Tehuisos sus vecinos: mas al Este seguian 
los Basiroas y los Tehatas." 

The Huvaguere have already been referred to above; 
and precisely the same remark applies to the Tehuisos, 
Basiroas, and Tehatas. All these supposed tribes or sub- 
tribes, including the Hios, are located by Orozco y Berra 
between the Tepahue and the Varohio, which are not dis- 
tant one from the other, and, according to his map, would 
lie directly along the border line between the territory of 
the Yaqui group and that of the Tarahumare. Although 
Ribas makes frequent mention of the Hios, he does not 
speak of them separately nor refer to their language; he 
makes no mention of any one of the other three names. 
Zapata (384-389), writing some thirty or forty years later, 
and referring to the missions and pueblos of this precise 
section, does not name any one of these four subtribes or 
their idioms, if different. Yet he does refer to the Guaza- 
pare and the Varohio, and to the pueblos of Chinipa, Conicari, 
etc., in the region mentioned, and to the language spoken 
therein. However, Alegre, writing in the following cen- 
tury, speaks of the Hios eight leagues east of the -Tepahue 
and five from Comicari [Conicari], of the Huvagueres and 
Tehuisos, their neighbors, and of the Basiroas and Te- 
hatas, a little farther in the sierra. This is evidently 
Orozco y Berra's authority for his statement, but as the 
statement by Alegre closes with reference to "otros pue- 
blos, ' ' it seems evident that he uses the names mentioned 
as referring to villages. As there are no indications any- 
where, not even in Orozco y Berra's list of languages, that 
these names bore any relation to distinct idioms, they may 
be eliminated. 

Batucos Ribas (359) says they came from the north., and dwelt near 

the friendly "naciones" — Cumupas, Buasdabas, and Bapis- 
pes, extending down eastward to the Sunas. Kino, Kap- 
pus, and Mange (393) speak of Batuco as a geographical 
term — "los valles y pueblos de Batuco"— but a little 
farther on (400) make mention of the entrance of Padre 
Mendez into the "nacion" of the Batucos. Zapata (356) 
says the language spoken in the pueblo of Santa Maria de 
Batuco was Tehue. The geographical description gives the 
same location as the preceding. Azpilcueta (in Alegre, n, 
186), referring to his visit to the Batuco, says their lan- 
guage is not difficult and appears to be much like that of 
Ocoroni. According to Velasco (Orozco y Berra, 1:343), 
Batuco was one of the pueblos of the Opatas Teguis. As 
, the name "Teguis" seems to be pronounced Te-gu-is, it is 
possible that Te-hu-e is the same. If this be correct, the 
last two statements agree and the language spoken was 
Opata. The Tahue mentioned farther on must not be 
confounded with Tehue here: the former belonged to 
Sinaloa, the latter to Sonora. However, Orozco y Berra 



34 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



classes Tehue- with Eudeve, but without considering it 
a distinct idiom, as he does not include it in his list of 
languages. 

Cajuenches After giving an extract from Francisco Garces, Orozco y 

Berra (1: 350) says this may appear at first not to correspond 
with what he (Orozco y Berra) has said, as according to it 
the nations dwelling along the Colorado river, beginning 
at the mouth, were the Cucapa, Jallicuamay, Cajuenche, 
Jalchedun, and Jamajab, where he had placed the Quiqui- 
mas, Cuhanas, and Yumas. He claims, however, that the 
contradiction will disappear when we consider that the 
Cuhanes and Cucapas were one and the same tribe and 
that the others are nothing more than families [bands?] 
derived from the pueblos speaking Pima. As it is clear 
from Garces' Diario that the Cajuenche were north of the 
Cocopa and were Yuman, they should be considered as 
belonging to the United States. 

Chinarras According to Orozco y Berra (1: 325), the Chinarra, or Huma, 

occupied the pueblo of Santa Ana, in Chihuahua. This, he 
states, was situated to the southeast of the Tarahumare ter- 
ritory, apparently in the southern part of the area he has 
assigned to the Concho on his map. Arlegui (110) brings 
them into relation with the Concho, who, he says, anciently 
inhabited a large area and many pueblos, some of which were 
occupied subsequently by the Tarahumare. Then follows 
the list of other "naciones" of this region — Tobosos, 
Chizos, Cocoyames, Acoclames, Julimes, Tapacolmes, Chi- 
narras, etc. Orozco y Berra, probably on the authority of 
Hervas as given below, says the Chinarras spoke a Mexican 
dialect ("dialecto Mexicano"). Hervas (312) says that the 
missionary Rafael Palacios informed him (in a letter) that 
the Cinarras dwelt about 28 leagues north of the Conchos; 
that while they spoke Spanish, yet he had heard them 
speaking together a language which to his ear appeared to be 
Mexican. They informed him that they were derived from 
the Conchos. It would seem from this that they lived near 
the international boundary line. 

Coras (of Lower Cali- This name has been applied to a subtribe of the Waicuri, 
fornia). and is mentioned here merely to call attention to the dis- 

tinction to be made between it and the well-known tribe 
of the same name in the state of Jalisco, discussed in the 
first part of these notes. 

Cumupas, Buasdabas. Same reference and remark as under Bapispes, above. 

Himeris (Hymeris). . . Alegre (n, 343) says the Hymeri were a "nacion" situated in 
the various valleys formed by the Sierra Madre northwest 
of the valley of Sonora — that is to say, in the Opata country. 
According to Ribas, they were ferocious, holding friendship 
with no other people, from which fact Hervas (337) 
thinks it probable they spoke a dialect distinct from that of 
the Opatas, though they were related to that people. 
Orozco y Berra (1:58) classes them, with the Opata without 
idiomatic distinction. 

Mediotaguei Same remark as for Tahue. 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 35 



Nacomeris, Nacosuras. Ribas (358) mentions these two peoples as adjoining on one side 
the Hure (Opata) and on the other the Himeri. They were 
in fact pueblos, the first on the Rio Horcasitas and the other 
on the Rio Moctezuma. Zapata (352) says the language 
spoken at Nacameri was Huere (that is, Opata). 

Ocoronis Ribas (34) mentions the Ocoroni in connection with Mocorito 

and Petatlan, the three on the first three rivers of Sinaloa, 
and says they are of "varias lenguas." According to 
Zapata (401) the inhabitants of the pueblo of Ocoroni, per- 
taining to the "partido" of Tehueco, in Sinaloa, and sit- 
uated fifteen or sixteen leagues southeast of Mochicagui, 
spoke a distinct idiom called Ocoroni. Orozco y Berra 
(1: 333) gives it as distinct, inserts it in his list of languages, 
and places it on his map adjoining Vacoregue on the east. 
Sevin (xxx, 12) says: "Towards the town of El Fuerte. 
and farther north, we find the Mayos Indians, to which 
belong also the tribes Quasare, Ahome, and Ocoronis." As 
there is some doubt in regard to this last statement, and 
as Orozco y Berra has evidently marked the space on his 
map with doubt, the name is omitted from our map. It is 
probable that the language was Tehueco, or a dialect of it. 

Pacasa Same remark as for Tahue. 

Piros The Piros, mentioned by Orozco y Berra (1:325-326) as 

inhabiting pueblos on the Rio Grande near the present town 
of El Paso, and speaking the Piro language, which he places 
in his list of unclassified languages, were in fact a tribe 
occupying numerous pueblos east of and along the Rio 
Grande north of El Paso nearly to Albuquerque. Bancroft 
(in, 714) gives a copy of what purports to be the Lord's 
Prayer in this language. The position of the language 
appears to have been determined with comparative cer- 
tainty from a vocabulary obtained by X. R. Bartlett. From 
this Gatschet (416-417) brings it into the stock of the Rio 
Grande pueblos called Tanoan, and makes it the type of 
one of the divisions of this stock. 

Sisibotaris Ribas (380) mentions the Sisibotaris as a sub tribe of the Lower 

Pima, but does not say their language is distinct, nor does 
Orozco y Berra give the name in his list of languages. 
Alegre (n, 124) says they dwelt in some beautiful valleys 
surrounded by mountains not very high, that they were 
docile and different from the Yaqui and Mayo, quoting from 
Ribas, but adds nothing in regard to their language. 
Unless referring to Balbi's statement, Orozco y Berra (1 : 353) 
seems to make the mistake of calling them a subtribe of 
the Upper Pima, when immediately below (1 :353, 58) he 
places them with the Lower Pima. 



Sumas A semi-nomadic tribe about Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, and 

El Paso. Affinities unknown. 

Tahue (Tahueca) This is mentioned by Orozco y Berra (1 : 336) as one of the 

extinct languages of Sinaloa. See Batucos, above. 

Temoris Mentioned by Ribas (215) in connection with the Guazapares, 

Chinipas, andHios, and as residing in the sierras, hence 
along the southwestern boundary of the Tarahumare terri- 
tory. According to Zapata (390), the pueblo of Santa Maria 



86 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



Magdalena de Temoris was situated in the partido of Santa 
Teresa de Guazapares, and spoke the same language, that 
is, Guazapare, a dialect of Tarahumare (Orozco y Berra, 
1 : 324, 326). 

Tiburones A name sometimes applied to the Seri, especially those resid- 
ing on Tiburon island (McGee, 128 et seq.). 

Torames Seems to have been a name applied to certain Indians living 

in the district of Zentispac, in Jalisco, and bordering on 
the Cora and Tepehuane. An associated group was known 
as Zayahuecos (Orozco y Berra, 1 : 278). Nothing is said by 
this author in regard to their language. 

Zuaques (Suaqui). These are to be distinguished from the Zuaques, heretofore 

described as belonging to the Yaqui group. It is properly 
Suaqui and denotes merely the Pima inhabitants of Suaqui, 
a pueblo in the extreme northern portion of the Lower 
Piman territory. 

Concho 

In passing to the northern central and northeastern districts one 
enters a region where nearly all the aboriginal languages have become 
extinct, and the little that' remains on record in regard to them is 
not sufficient to make possible their classification with any degree 
of certainty. The most that can be done is to gather up the scat- 
tered notices of them found in the early Spanish writings and from 
these lay off the areas in such manner as seems most consistent with 
the data. This has been done by Orozco y Berra, who had access 
not only to the published works but also to the manuscript docu- 
ments. His map, therefore, has been followed somewhat closely so 
far as this region is concerned. 

The Concho resided immediately east of the Tarahumare, chiefly 
along the river that bears their name, from near its headwaters to its 
junction with the Rio Grande del Norte. The exact lateral bounda- 
ries of the territory occupied are not known, those given on the 
map being largely conjectural. Alegre (n, 58) says this "nacion," 
sufficiently numerous, extended to the banks of the Rio Grande del 
Norte; that they were confined' on the north by the marshes and on 
the south held some pueblos of the Tepehuane; and " Valle de Santa 
Barbara." 

Orozco y Berra (1: 325) says they spoke a " particular language 
called Concha." Although this statement is not sufficient of itself 
to indicate that it was without any known or supposed affinities, 
what follows in the same connection and in his classification (1 : 55) 
indicates that he considered it a distinct dialect of his "Mexicano," 
under which he classifies it, thus bringing it into the Nahuatlan 
family. 

It is asserted by Hervas and others that the missionaries contended 
that they spoke a dialect of, or a language related to, the Mexican — 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 37 

that is to say, belonging to the Nahuatlan stock. If it be true that 
.one of the missionaries wrote an "Arte y Vocabulario" in this 
language, as asserted by Ludewig (52) on the authority of Arlegui 
and De Souza, this evidently shows sufficient study of the language 
to have given some knowledge of its affinities. That it could not 
have been related to the Athapascan group seems to be indicated 
by this evidence. 

The several missions among the Concho gave the missionaries a 
good opportunity of studying their language and customs, and, where 
Indians of more than one language were collected, of comparing dia- 
lects. For example, we learn from Arlegui (97) that there were 
gathered at the Convento of the Valle de S. Bartholome representa- 
tives of the Concho, Tarahumare, and Toboso. 

On the whole, the evidence seems strong enough to warrant us 
in placing the tribe in the Nahuatlan family. 

Toboso 

According to the conclusion reached by Orozco y Berra, as shown 
on his map, the Toboso occupied the region immediately east of the 
Concho and extending northward from a little below the twenty- 
seventh degree of north latitude to the Rio Grande del Norte, join- 
ing the Pakawan group on the east and the Laguneros (Orozco's 
Irritilas) on the south. Orozco y Berra (1:308-309) says they 
spread about the Bolson de Mapimi, and committing depredations 
in Chihuahua and Durango, as on the missions of Parr as, and some 
of those in Coahuila and the north of Nuevo Leon. 

Villa-Senor y Sanchez (n, 296-297) associates them with a tribe 
or people he names Gabilanes, and locates them, or part of them, 
in a region on the border line of Coahuila and Nueva Vizcaya, called 
the "Cuesta de los muertos." He gives as the number of Toboso of 
this group some 90 or 100 families. At another place in the same vol- 
ume (349) he mentions as tribes living in this desert region and 
stretching along the banks of the Rio Grande, including part of the 
lands of Coahuila and northward, the Toboso, Gabilanes, "Tripas 
blancas," Xicarillas, and others, some of which were undoubtedly 
Apache. 

It would seem from these items of evidence, from the additional 
fact that the Toboso are several times spoken of by the early author- 
ities as being joined with the Apache in their raids, and from the 
savage, predatory character ascribed to them, that Orozco y Berra 
is justified in classifying them with the Apache (1 : 309). 

The Cocoyome and Cabezas, which he mentions in the reference 
given, appear to have been embraced by him under Toboso. How- 
ever, it is proper to state that Morn (418) appears to distinguish 
between the Toboso and the Apache, but gives them like charac- 



38 



BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



teristics. This distinction was at most probably nothing more than 
dialectic, and possibly only in name. It is justifiable, therefore, con- 
sidering the data, to accept Orozco y Berra's conclusion. 

Bancroft (i, 610) says, "The Tobosos are north of the Tarahumares 
and in the Mission of San Francisco de Coahuila, in the State of 
Coahuila/' but this is evidently erroneous unless the reference is to 
scattered divisions. The location given on his map corresponds with 
this statement, the Tarahumare being placed along the extreme 
southern border of the state of Chihuahua. In the same volume 
(572) he says, "East of the Tarahumares, in the northern part of 
the first-named state [Chihuahua], dwell the Conchos;" and the 
latter are placed on his map in the northern part of Chihuahua. 

Pakawan 

Coahuilteco was adopted by Maj. J. W. Powell as the basis of a 
family name, Coahuiltecan, which appears to have included numer- 
ous small tribes in southern Texas and the adjoining portions of 
Mexico along the lower part of the Rio Grande del Norte, but it has 
been thought by the present writer that the native name, Pakawan, 
used by Gatschet, is more appropriate. Major Powell remarks as fol- 
lows (68): 

On page 63 of his Geografia de las Lenguas de Mexico, 1864, Orozco y Berra gives a 
list of the languages of Mexico and includes Coahuilteco, indicating it as the lan- 
guage of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas. He does not, however, indicate 
its extension into Texas. It would thus seem that he intended the name as a gen- 
eral designation for the language of all the cognate tribes ... In his statement that 
the language and tribes are extinct this author was mistaken, as a few Indians still 
(1886) survive, who speak one of the dialects of this family, and in 1886 Mr. Gatschet 
collected vocabularies of two tribes, the Comecrudo and Cotoname, who live on the 
Rio Grande, at Las Prietas, State of Tamaulipas. 

Bartolome Garcia in his "Manual para administrar los Santos 
Sacramentos" (title-page) names 17 tribes speaking dialects of this 
language. Adolph Uhde (120 et seq.) gives the names and locations 
of 74, based on previous works and his personal observations. It is 
scarcely possible, however, that these should be understood as tribes. 

As the data are not sufficient to justify any attempt to locate the 
tribes or subtribes which dwelt south of the Kio Grande, except 
those identified by Doctor Gatschet, the writer has followed Orozco 
y Berra substantially in the area assigned to this family. Beyond 
this, with the exceptions mentioned, all is uncertainty and any 
conclusion mere guesswork. 

Laguneros 

The people included by Orozco y Berra under the name "Irritilas" 
are those to whom the missionaries and earlier authorities applied 
the term "Laguneros" adopted in the present work, the name 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 39 

Irritila having been selected by Orozco y Berra because it was given 
by Rib as and some other early writers as the name of one of the 
tribes or sub tribes of the Laguneros. The principal region occupied 
by them lay about the lakes of the table-lands of Mapimi, of which 
the most important was the Laguna de Parras (or San Pedro). The 
brief statement by Ribas (669) in regard to location is given in the 
note below/ where it is seen that he almost confines them to the 
region about the Laguna de San Pedro. 

The southwestern boundary of the area appears to be approxi- 
mately determined by another statement of the same author (673), 
that Cuencame, a pueblo on the Rio Nazas, 8 leagues southwest of 
the lake, was peopled by Zacatecos. On the other hand, however, 
it is uncertain what languages were spoken by the Laguneros and 
what were their affinities. The author last quoted indicates that 
at the founding of the Parras mission by Father Juan Agustin the 
Zacatec language was used, at least in part. He states, however, 
in the chapter following, that Zacatecos came to the mission and 
joined those of the locality. In chapter x he refers to the ^Iritiles" 
as one of the several u naciones" of the Laguna, and speaks of a 
" cacique de los que llamaua Iritilas." 

Alegre (i, 380) says the people along the Nazas river and about 
the lake spoke rudely ("groseramente") the Mexican language 
(about the year 1600). In another place (i, 416) he mentions, as in 
this region, the Ochoes, a ferocious and inhuman people, and the 
Alamamas, a less barbarous people. The statement is made (Doc. 
Hist. Mex., 4th s., m, 33, under the title "Del Anua del ano de 
1596") that the Indians dwelling along the Nazas river were Zaca- 
tecos, but those at the " Laguna ' ; are referred to as of another ' k gente," 
the name of which is not given. The same volume (54) mentions 
Irritila and Mexicana as languages spoken, the former being the idiom 
proper to that particular locality. On a following page (58) are 
mentioned the following u naciones ,; as coming from the surround- 
ing country to join the Irritila in their religious festivities — Mio- 
pacoas, Meviras, Hoeras, and Maiconeras, and as coming from the 
lake, the Paogas and Caviseras, Yassapalles and Ahomamas, and 
the Yanabopos and Daparabopos (mentioned in pairs, as named 
here). However, it is not at all likely that these were all tribes or 
even subtribes, but mere bands, hence this reference can not be 
accepted as indicative of so many different idioms. 

It is evident, therefore, that the data regarding the tribes of the 
region marked off by Orozco y Berra, under the name Irritila, are 
not sufficient to justify any decided conclusion regarding their lin- 



1 Y de los que nSbran Laguneros, poblados a las margenes de la laguna que Raman Grande de san Pedro, 
y algunos dellos en las isletas que haze la misma laguna. A la cabegera desta doctrina, y Mission, dieron 
los Espafioles nombre de Parras. 



40 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN" ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



guistic affinities. The intimate relations of the Laguneros with the 
Zacatecos, however, lead to the suggestion that these two groups were 
probably linguistically related. 

Zacateco 

The Zacateco inhabited the state of Zacatecas and part of Durango, 
more especially those portions in the drainage area of Nazas river. 
Orozco y Berra on his map bounds their area on the north by that 
of the Irritila, on the west by that of the Tepehuane, and on the 
east by that of the Guachichile. On the south they are brought 
into relation with the Cora and some small tribes (1 : 285, 319). 

It would perhaps be appropriate to allude here to that undefined 
group designated by the name Chichimeca, as the tribe now referred 
to was certainly included therein, but what is to be said on that 
subject will be given under a separate heading after a discussion of 
the Guachi chile. 

That there was a distinct tribe known under the name Zacateco, 
and that this tribe spoke its own appropriate idiom, are facts too 
well established to admit of doubt. Ribas (676), quoting from a 
letter of Padre Juan Agustin, one of the first missionaries to that 
section, says they gave religious instruction to the Indians in the 
Zacateco language, which they had acquired. Mota Padilla (194) 
connects the Cazcan with the Zacateco as speaking the same 
language. On the other hand, Hervas (311) maintains that the lan- 
guage was Mexican. He says their name, the names of their "pobla- 
ciones," and of their rivers, are Mexican. Orozco y Berra (1:285) 
agrees with Hervas on the point mentioned, as he says the Zacateco 
have their proper idiom, which is here classified as a Mexican dialect. 
If it be true, as stated by this author (2:644), that an "Arte y 
Vocabulario" of the Zacatec language was written by Father Pedro 
Espinareda, there is in this fact quite conclusive evidence that the 
missionaries recognized the language spoken by the Zacateco as at 
least idiomatically distinct from the other known tongues and as 
sufficiently varied to require a special acquaintance therewith to give 
religious instruction to the natives speaking it. 

Unless the Cazcan and Teule Chichimeca were connected with 
them, there are no recognized subtribes of the Zacateco. 

Guachichile 

{Synonym : Cuachichiles) 

This tribe, or group, says Orozco y Berra, occupied an immense 
area, embracing parts of the present states of Zacatecas, San Luis 
Potosi, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila. According to his map, they con- 
nected on the north with the Irritila (Laguneros), on the west with 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 41 

the Zacateco, and on the south and southeast with the Otomi. The 
missions established among these Indians by the Franciscans, accord- 
ing to the author last quoted (who gives as his authority a manuscript 
in the Archivo General), were San Luis, Saltillo, Venado, Charcas, 
Valle de Atotonilco, Pinos, Asuncion Tlaxcalilla, and San Miguel 
Mczquitic. 

Their language, says Orozco y Berra (J: 285), was distinct. He 
says also, in another place (1:298), "su lengua 'era propia/ y es 
una de las que han desaparecido." Laet (281) says that it was dif- 
ferent from that of the Zacateco. Arlegui (86), speaking of the 
natives at and about the Convent o of Asuncion de Tlascalilla, one 
of those mentioned above, calls them " Guachichiles Chichime- 
cos." Orozco y Berra (1: 280) appears to bring together the Cazcan 
and the Guachichile as pertaining to the "Teules Chichimecas." 
When referring to the Indians of the region under consideration, 
Mota Padilla usually terms them Chichimecas. These people are 
classed as Nahuatlan, on the authority of Doctor Hrdlicka, who 
states that the most intelligent man among the Huichol told him 
that Guachichil was the ancient name of his tribe. ^Doctor Hrdlicka 
adds that the Huichol to this day go over to San Luis Potosi to 
camp during certain seasons of the year. This fact would account 
for Orozco y Berra's puzzle in not finding Huichol referred to in the 
early narratives. 

The Term Chichimeca 

It is probable that this term should be given a somewhat more 
definite signification than philologists appear disposed to accord to 
it. That it has been used in the past in widely different senses is 
true, but when the more extravagant applications are cast aside 
and the others are carefully studied, the use of the term is found 
to be more limited. The fact that it has been interpreted as a 
term of contempt signifying "dogs," or a dog people/ 7 even if 
correct (although it is really doubtful), does not necessarily mean 
that it was applied by those with whom it originated to any 
and every barbarous people. When this elimination shall have 
taken place, the name will be found to include people of more than 
one stock, yet it seems to have had a geographical limitation, and if 
the Otomi, or that portion of this stock usually included, be excluded, 
there appears to be to some extent a linguistic signification. 

It is unnecessary to quote authorities to show that the name 
Chichimeca was applied geographically to tribes living north of 
Mexico City, as this is generally admitted. The range may be fur- 
ther limited, as follows: It does not appear that the name was ever 
applied to the Tepehuane in Durango, or to any tribe living north 
or west of them; it was never applied to the Cora on the southwest, 
8347°— Bull. 44—11 4 



42 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN" ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



though the Teule and the Cazcan, residing immediately southeast of 
the Cora, were included by some authorities. On the south the 
name reached into the vale of Anahuac, but in this direction its 
application was very indefinite, being based largely on more or less 
mythical traditions. On the southeast the range was certainly 
bounded by the Huasteca. On the east and northeast it does not 
appear to have included the Tamaulipecan or the Coahuiltecan 
tribes. Nor does it seem to have extended northward into the 
regions assigned by Orozco y Berra to the Toboso and the Concho. 
This summary indicates as the area over which the name may have 
extended the sections marked on Orozco y Berra's map — Zacateco, 
Teule and Cazcan, Guachichile, Irritila, Pame, and Otomi. 

It may be supposed that the name Chichimeca at first was applied 
hidefinitely to all the wild and unknown tribes north of the City of 
Mexico, and that, as exploration progressed and more definite infor- 
mation was obtained, one tribe after another was eliminated from 
the scope of the term. This, however, is a supposition which does 
not appear to be supported by the facts. 

A few of the early statements bearing on the subject are here pre- 
sented. Quoting from a manuscript of 1579 by Gabriel de Chavez, 
Orozco j Berra (1:246-247) says of the "Senorio of Meztitlan," 
the country of the Meztitlateco, a Nahuatlan tribe closely related 
to the Aztec, that it (the Senorio) extended throughout all the sierra, 
bounded (on the east) by the Huasteca; that Xelitla was the most 
westerly point, one coming into contact here with the u barbaros 
Chicliimecas ; " and that the Senorio was bordered on the north by 
the Chichimeca. Following Pomar, he says (1:241) the name 
Tezcoco is from the term tetzcotl in the Chichimeca language, Fur- 
ther, he distinguishes (1:256-257) Mexicano (Aztec) from Nahuatl, 
the latter being the supposed language of the Toltec, including the 
Niquiran of Nicaragua, a distinction not accepted by philologists. 
This is mentioned, however, only to introduce the statement by him 
which immediately follows: "With respect to the Chichimeca we 
judge that it was a language different from the Nahoa, and are satis- 
fied it has become extinct." He then refers (1:257) to a statement 
that at Pachuca in 1579 were spoken Otomi, Mexican, and Chichi- 
meca, the last "a language not understood by the others." 

Again (1 :284), speaking of the Indians of Zacatecas, Orozco y 
Berra saj^s: 

As has been a thousand times repeated, under the name " Chichimecas " are compre- 
hended collectively all the barbarous and wandering tribes, but in reality the name 
corresponds only to the family or families which came from the north and were the pro- 
genitors of the nation which established itself in the valley of the kingdom of Acolhua- 
can. In this sense the Chichimecas extended from Zacatecas to Queretaro, the Rio 
Tololotlan forming the southern limit, occupying toward the east San Luis Potosi, and 
part of southern Tamaulipas. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 43 

He adds, however, that they did not all use the same idiom, and that 
those who wandered in the lands of the Zacatecas and the Aguas- 
calientes took in common the name "Teules Chichimecas/' but that 
they were divided into factions having particular idioms. Of these 
he mentions the Cazcan, Tepecano (who, however, as already shown, 
were probably connected with the Cora), and Tecuexe. Orozco y 
Berra considered Zacateco a dialect of his Mexicano. He seems to 
include also the Guachichile among the Chichimeca, although speak- 
ing a distinct language (1 : 285). The Indians of Aguascalientes he 
denominates "Chichimecas Blancos," but is not aware that they bore 
any relation to the Guachichile, though inclined to the belief that they 
were related to the Otomi (1 : 286). 

Speaking of the Indians of Queretaro (1 : 261), and basing his con- 
clusion on a manuscript of 1582, Orozco y Berra says the Chichimeca 
of this region were of the Otomi family. The Chichimeca of Jalisco 
(next to the borders of Guanajuato) are believed by him to have been 
Chichimecas-Blancos, hence of the Otomi family (1 : 278). Sahagun 
(656) says the true name of the Tolteca was Chichimeca. A little 
farther on, in the same chapter, he states that the Chichimeca form 
three groups — the Otomi, the Tamime, and the Teo-Chichimeca. He 
considers the last two of the same "race" and the more barbarous 
in their customs and mode of life, and states that those who mingle 
with the Mexicanos, or Nahua, speak Mexican as well as their own 
tongue, and those mingling with the Otomi and the Huasteca speak 
the languages of those tribes as well as they do their own. 

Hervas (298) says that north of the Otomi were the Chichimecas who 
did not speak the Mexican language. Perez de Ribas (lib. 12, cap. 2) 
refers to their location as north of the City of Mexico, of their wild and 
barbarous habits, and of their division into numerous tribes speaking 
various languages, but gives no particulars in regard to these idioms. 

The following information with regard to them is given by Villa- 
Sefior y Sanchez (n, lib. 3, cap. 3). At Zelaya, or in its jurisdiction^ 
there were "2,650 families" of the nation Otomi, descendants of the 
Chichimeca, who peopled these parts before the Conquest. Again 
(u, lib. 3, cap. 9), referring to San Luis Potosi, this author says 
it was on the frontiers of the Chichimeca. He states also in the same 
chapter that some of these Indians were converted at the mission 
near the pueblo of Santa Catarina Martyrs de Rio Verde. This indi- 
cates that the name Chichimecas was still actually applied in his 
day (1746). In the same work (n, lib. 3, cap. 10) he estimates the 
Indians of the jurisdiction of San Pedro Guadalcazar at about 2,000 
families, all Chichimeca, some of whom had accepted the holy faith, 
and the various connected districts at 3,000 families, all Chichimeca. 
He speaks in like manner of these Indians at other places, recognizing 
them at that day as known by this name. 



44 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



Taking all these facts into consideration, it is believed that a careful 
study of the subject would result in a more definite application of the 
name, at least geographically. However, it has received no lin- 
guistic consideration in the present paper, the majority of the groups 
formerly included under the name being herein placed in the Nahua- 
tlan family. 



No attempt will be made at this time to determine the tribes or 
sub tribes of the area so designated by Orozco y Berra on his map, 
further than what will be found in the notes below (page 45) on 
" Names of tribes in northeastern Mexico not marked on the map." 



Orozco y Berra locates the area over which these tribes wandered 
at the southwest of the Tamaulipeco district, and says (1:298-299) 
it extended from the valley of the Purisima on the south to the Rio 
Blanco on the north, being bounded on the west by the district of 
the Guachichiles. However, according to his map, it connects on 
the southwest with the district assigned to the Pame. He says 
(1:296) that the Pisone and Xanambre (Janambre) belong to 
the same " family" and speak the same language, which is " par- 
ticular." Arlegui (115), speaking of the Mission of San Antonio, 
says it was vexed by a warlike nation called Janambre. Orozco y 
Berra (1:292, 293) speaks of them in like manner. 

Villa-Senor (n, 56) locates some of the Indians of these tribes, 
somewhat definitely, at 20 leagues to the east of the pueblo of Tula. 

These tribes are now extinct, but they seem to have been in ex- 
istence as late as the first quarter of the eighteenth century. 



Orozco y Berra locates on his map a small tribe with this name 
in the extreme southern portion of the Tamaulipeco district, on the 
southeastern border of the Pisone and Janambre territory. The 
name " Olive" is retained, as he informs us, because the proper 
native name is unknown. Nicolas Leon omits the tribe from his 
classification. 

This author (Orozco y Berra) says they resided in "Horcasitas," 
near San Francisco Xavier mission. According to his authorities, 
they were recent emigrants from "Florida," i. e., the region between 



the Rio Grande and the Atlantic Ocean, had a knowledge of firearms, 
and were light colored (1 : 293). The language is extinct. 



Tamaulipeco 



Pisone and Janambre 



Olive 




thomas] INDIAN- LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 45 



Names of Tribes in Northeastern Mexico not Considered 

Separately 

This is the proper place to allude to the names of the supposed 
tribes or subtribes of northeastern and eastern Mexico mentioned 
by early Spanish authors, but not marked on the accompanying 
map. As given in Orozco y Berra's list, these are numerous, but 
when examined are found to be limited mostly to the present 
states of Coahuila and Tamaulipas, of which, with very few excep- 
tions, nothing more can be said than that they are found in lists or 
merely mentioned without particulars. The present author's method 
is therefore reversed here, and allusion is made to but very few 
of these names, of which some particulars are available. 

It is quite possible that most of those mentioned as in Coahuila, 
chiefly along the Rio Grande, were Apache and Lip an, especially 
the former. The names near the Gulf coast, in part at least, may 
refer to the remnants of tribes forced thither by the stronger tribes 
of the interior. Orozco y Berra places on his map, on the Rio 
Grande near its mouth, the following names : 

Pintos Comesacapemes Auyapemes 

Tanaquiapemes Catanamepaques Uscapemes 

Ayapaguemes Saulapaguemes Gummesacapemes 

and in Tamaulipas the following: 

Tamaulipecos Caribayes Comecrudos 

Canaynes Mariguanes Malinchenos 

Borrados Panguayes Ancasiguais 

Quinicuanes Anacana Comecamotes 

Tedexenos Cadinias Caramariguanes 

Pasitas Guixolotes Caramiguais 

Tagualilos Pintos? Aretines 

All in the latter list are located by Orozco y Berra in his Tamau- 
lipeco area, and north of Panuco river, while south of the river are 
only the well-known tribes, Huasteca, etc. 

Of these names but little can be said, as all, or nearly all, are now 
extinct. Doctor Gatschet 1 in 1886 found some twenty-five of the 
Comecrudo at Las Prietas, Tamaulipas. The Cotoname were prac- 
tically extinct, but one man being discovered. He obtained also 
information of the existence at La Volsa of two women of the Pinto, 
or Pakawa, tribe who, it was said, could speak their own language. 
The Cotoname of Doctor Gatschet probably corresponds with Cata- 
namepaques of the above list. So far as known, these were the 
only tribes not wholly extinct at the time of Doctor Gatschet's visit 
(1886). 



1 See Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 68. 



46 



BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



No published authority for any of these names other than Orozco 
y Berra's Geografia and what his statements are based on has been 
found. His authority, as he tells us (1: 291), is a manuscript in the 
Archivo General, by "D. Agustin Lopez de la Camara alta. 1757." 

Otomi 
{Synonym: Hia-hiu) 

The Otomi in the limited sense, that is, the group speaking the 
Otomi language and its dialects, occupied a large area of central 
Mexico, extending from the vicinity of Mexico City northward to 
22° N. lat., and east and west over nearly four degrees of longitude, 
joining the Huasteca on the northeast, the Nahuatlan on the north- 
west and southeast, and the Tarasco on the southwest. Orozco 
y Berra says (1:17) the language is encountered in the state of 
Mexico, in San Luis Potosi, embraces all of Queretaro (then including 
the present state of Hidalgo) and a large part of Guanajuato, reap- 
pearing with the Tepehua about the Totonac area and at a point 
on the confines of Puebla and Vera Cruz. Languages related to 
the Otomi proper are the Pame, the Mazahua, and the Pirinda. The 
evidence Orozco y Berra presents as to the area embraced is a list 
of pueblos and curates in which the Otomi language is known to 
have been spoken. 

It is unnecessary to quote the earlier authorities, as the name as 
used by them is not sufficiently definite to be applied to the Otomi 
tribe in the limited sense. Although it has been stated that there 
were numerous dialects in the speech of different pueblos, none 
save those mentioned above have been given. 

As Orozco y Berra's mapping will not be followed in this instance 
the following statement by Prof. Frederick Starr (79-80) should be 
considered : 

Where the states of Hidalgo, Puebla, and Vera Cruz come together we find the 
strangest interminghngs. There Aztecs, Otomis, Tepehuas, and Totonacs are sur- 
prisingly sprinkled. . . . In regard to this region, Orozco y Berra, usually so valuable, 
becomes frequently useless. 

Orozco y Berra in mapping the Otomi has given the Pame and 
Mazahua separate areas and different colors; the Pirinda, however, 
is omitted, as stated below. In the map accompanying this paper 
the different areas are brought under one color, the Pirinda having 
its area and number as the other divisions. 

A part of the Otomi, especially those toward the northwest, were 
included by some of the early writers under Chiehimeca. 

Pame 

The Pame, as located by Orozco y Berra, were bordered on the 
north and northeast by the Pisone and Janambre, on the south- 



Thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTBAL AMERICA 47 

east by the Huasteca, on the south by the Otomi, and on the west 
by the Guachichile. Their territory embraced parts of the states of 
Mexico, Queretaro, Guanajuato, and San Luis Potosi. 

As shown in the note below/ Francisco Palou gives them a some- 
what extended area. OrozcoyBerra says (1:48): The Pame [dialect] is 
used in the mission of Cerro Prieto, in the state of Mexico, is extended 
principally to the pueblos of San Luis Potosi, and is also met with 
in Queretaro and in Guanajuato." He mentions also other pueblos 
in these states. Pimentel (n, 265) says it was spoken in San Luis 
de la Paz, the territory of the Sierra Gorda, city of Maiz, Depart- 
ment of San Luis Potosi, and in Purisima Concepcion de Arnedo in 
the Sierra Gorda. 

According to the last-named authority (n, 265) there were three 
dialects of this language — one spoken in San Luis de la Paz, one 
in the city of Maiz, and the third in the Purisima Concepcion de 
Arnedo. No mention is made, however, of corresponding sub- 
tribes or clans. 

This language has recently been assigned, with probable correct- 
ness, though not on conclusive evidence, to the Otomi stock. Ale- 
gre (i, 282) pronounces the idiom difficult, and compares these Indians 
with the Otomi of the same locality (San Luis de la Paz), appar- 
ently indicating a belief in relationship, though not expressing 
such an opinion. Villa-Senor y Sanchez (n, lib. 3, cap. 8), speak- 
ing of the Indians about San Luis de la Paz, says they are Pame, 
and, immediately after, that the Indians of this section speak Otomi. 

Mazahua 

The Mazahua area is located on Orozco y Berra's map in the south- 
western portion of the state of Mexico, adjoining the Tarascan 
territory, though the traditional evidence locates the Mazahua more 
to the northeast. 

Clavigero (i, 105-106) says: 

The Mazahuas were once apart of the nation of the Otomies, as the languages of both 
nations are but different dialects of the same tongue. . . . The principal places 
which they inhabited were on the western mountains of the vale of Mexico, and formed 
the province of Mazahuacan, belonging to the crown of Tacuba. 

Orozco y Berra (1 : 256) says that in the time of Aztec control this 
tribe belonged to the " kingdom" of Tlacopan, its pueblos marking 
the limits between it and the Michoacan territory. Pimentel (n, 
,193), after quoting Clavigero's statement, remarks that in his day 
a remnant of the tribe was found in the district of Ixtlahuaca, 
belonging to the department of Mexico. Brasseur cle Bourbourg 



i Treinta leguas distante de la expresada Ciudad de Queretaro, y se estiende a cien leguas de largo, y 
freinta de ancho, en cuyas brefias vivian los Indios de la Nacion Pame. — Vida de Junipero Serra, p. 23 
(fide Bancroft, I, 672). 



48 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



(1: in, 56), alluding apparently to an earlier date, says their vil- 
lages extended northward to within a short distance of the ancient 
Tollan or Tula. As usual, Orozco y Berra determined the boundaries 
by the pueblos inhabited by people of this tribe. The Mazahua 
is included in the colored Otomian area of the map accompanying 
this paper. 

PlRINDA 

{Synonym: Matlaltzinco) 

Orozco y Berra (1: 273) has not marked on his map the area occu- 
pied by the people speaking this idiom, doubtless because of the fact 
that it does not appear that they had, in the historical era, any 
definite territory, a portion mingling with the Mexicans, but the 
greater part occupying pueblos in the territory of the Tarasco. 
Clavigero (i, 106) merely locates them in the "fertile vale of Toluca," 
which is immediately south of the Mazahuan territory. This state- 
ment, however, appears to refer to the tribe before it was con- 
quered by Axayacatl, "king" of Mexico, as indicated by Pimentel, 
who, in connection with the quotation from Clavigero, says, "anciently 
in the valley of Toluca." 

In the present classification the author has followed Brinton by 
including the tribe in the Otomian area. 

Meco 

{Synonym: Jonaz) 

Bancroft (m, 743), on what authority the author is not aware, 
identifies the people speaking this language with the Serranos. Never- 
theless, in this way a difficulty otherwise unexplained is removed. 
He locates them "in the Sierra Gorda and in Guanahuato." But 
Alcedo (iv, 567) says they live in the pueblo Soledad de las Canoas, 
in the state of Queretaro. Orozco } r Berra (1:264), whose state- 
ment is more exact, says they were gathered by the missionaries at 
the newly founded pueblo of San Luis de la Paz, and connects them 
with the people of San Jose Vizarron, in Queretaro. He also adds: 
"La parcialidad de chichimecos que fue congregada, pertenecia a la 
familia de los Tonases 6 Jonases cuya iengua se llamo Meco por los 
misioneros lo mismo que denominaron la de los habitantes de San 
Jose Vizarron." 

HlJASTECA 

As the relation of the Huastecan language to the Mayan stock 
is well known, it is necessary to note here only the evidence relating 
to the location of the tribe. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 49 

Marcelo Alexandre (162) says that, according to tradition, the 
Huasteca coming from the north established themselves first at the 
place now known as Altamira, in Tamaulipas, and afterward moved 
to the left bank of the Bar of Tampico. Sahagun (670) states that 
they lived in the province of Panuco, properly called Pantlan, or 
Panotlan. Pimentel (i, 5) says that at the coming of the Spaniards 
the place they occupied was at the north of the kingdom of Texcoco 
(Tezcuco), comprehending the north part of the state of Vera Cruz 
and a small part ("fraccion") of the bordering portion of San Luis. 
According to Orozco y Berra (1:206), their area extended along the 
Gulf coast from Vera Cruz to San Luis Potosi, extending probably 
some distance into Tamaulipas. 

Totonac 

As to their language and history, as well as to geographical posi- 
tion, the Totonac are one of the most interesting tribes of Mexico. 
The proper classification of their language has long been, and is still, 
in doubt, so much so that it is usually given as an independent stock. 
It was on their territory that Spanish history and Spanish rule had 
their initiation in Mexico and Central America, when Cortes appeared 
on the scene in 1519. 

The area they occupied was in the northern portions of what are 
now the states of Vera Cruz and Puebla and the eastern extremity 
of Hidalgo, the Gulf coast forming the eastern boundary, and the 
northern boundary following closely the twenty-first parallel of north 
latitude. 

According to the Arte of D. Jose Zambrano, which has been fol- 
lowed by subsequent writers, the Totonac language was divided into 
four idioms : Tetikilhati, spoken by the Tetikilhati in the high sierras; 
Chakahuaxti, spoken by Chakahuaxti in the pueblos of Xalpan and 
Pantepec; Tatimolo, spoken by the Tatimolo of the pueblo Naolingo; 
and Ipapana, spoken by the Ipapana in the missions of the Augus- 
tines. As these idioms have not been determined by subsequent 
investigation, they are omitted. The present tendency of linguistic 
opinion is to place the Totonac language in the Mayan family, thus 
bringing it into relation with the Huasteca. The long friendly rela- 
tions between the two tribes correspond with this opinion. Orozco 
y Berra (1:214) expressed his belief in the relationship of the two 
dialects. 

Tepehua 

The Tepehua, which has been given as distinct by Orozco y Berra, 
and located on his map along the northwestern border of the 
Totonac territory, is in all probability related to the latter and 
should be placed in the same group. He says that, joined to the Toto- 



50 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



nacs there u a section formed of various pueblos where they speak 
the Otomi and Tepehua languages. The latter he had not encoun- 
tered outside of this locality, and had not been able to learn whether it 
resembles any of the known languages. He adds further that it is 
spoken exclusively only in the pueblo of San Francisco of the curacy 
of Huayacocotla. He considered the language as confined to the 
state of Vera Cruz. Prof. Frederick Starr (83-84), quoting his state- 
ment, remarks as follows : " In this he is in error. Huehuetla (district 
of Tenango, Hidalgo) is purely Tepehua, and a large town, Tlaxco, 
in the state of Puebla, is in part Tepehua. " He suggests that the lan- 
guage is probably related to the Totonac, and this seems to be con- 
firmed by the vocabularies given in his paper. It is therefore 
included in the territory of the latter on the map, and should be 
classified, as has been said, as a dialect of the Totonac. 

Meztitlaneca 

This language, which belongs to the Nahuatlan family, appears 
to be a dialect of the Aztec, and its area is included by Orozco y Berra 
in his Mexicano, without any reference to the fact in his text. 
The subtribe speaking the dialect inhabited the region north of 
Tezcuco, between the Sierra Madre and the Huastecan territory 
(1:246-247). 

Although the relationship with the Aztec has been a matter of his- 
tory from the entry of the Spaniards to the present time, the author 
is unable to refer to a vocabulary of the language. 

Tlascalan 

The area occupied by the Tlascala (or Tlaxcala) corresponds sub- 
stantially with the present state of Tlascala. They spoke a dialect 
of the Aztec or Mexican language. This is so well understood, 
however, and so frequently mentioned, that it is unnecessary to add 
further evidence on the subject. 

Cuitlateco 
(Synonym: Teco) 

Clavigero (i, 5) says: 

The Cuitlatecas inhabited a country which extended more than two hundred miles 
from the north-west to the south-east, from the kingdom of Michuacan, as far as the 
Pacific Ocean. Their capital was the great and populous city of Mexcaltepec upon the 
coast. 

Orozco y Berra says (1 : 233) this language was spoken in Ajuchitlan, 
San Cristobal, and Poliutla, in the municipality of Ajuchitlan and 
district of the same name, and in Atoyac, in the district and munici- 
pality of Tecpan; and that the province of the Cuitlateco was com- 
prehended between those of Zacatula and the Cohuixe. However, 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTEAL AMERICA 51 

this writer and Pimentel distinguish Teca or Teco from the Cuitlateco, 
the former (1 : 196) giving as equivalents Chocho, Popoloco, Tlapaneco, 
Pupuluca, and Yope, thus bringing it into relation with theMixe group, 
while the Cuitlateco is confessedly a Nahuatlan tongue, a mere idiom 
of the Aztec, though the author quoted says he does not attempt to 
classify it. That the two are merely different names for the same 
people is clearly demonstrated by F. Plancarte (1888). 

In a note to the same article (26) Dr. N. Leon quotes from a work by 
Juan Joseph Moreno the statement that the language of the Cuitlate- 
cos was "a daughter of the Mexican or the Mexican barbarized," and 
mentions an Arte by Dr. Martin de Espinosa. 

Tarasco 

{Synonym: Michoacano) 

As the only subjects engaging attention here are the languages and 
localities, it is unnecessary to introduce evidence where these have 
been satisfactorily determined. As the Tarascan language is now 
well known as constituting a separate family, and as the extent of it 
as given by Orozco y Berra on his map is confirmed as correct by 
Pimentel, it is not necessary to present further evidence. 

Aztec 

{Synonym: Mexicano) , 

For the reasons given above under Tarasco it is unnecessary to add 
more here than the following statement. As Orozco y Berra, in laying 
off the territory in which this language prevailed, went over all the 
data available, taking pueblo after pueblo where it was spoken, it 
is necessary only to refer to his Geografla, and to add that two small 
areas in Sinaloa given by him under separate names, as stated above, 
have been included, and that the subtribes Tlascalan and Cuitlateco 
have been marked on our map in the Aztec area. Orozco y Berra 
(1:64) mentions as the states in which this language was spoken to 
a greater or less extent, Tabasco, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Puebla, Tlaxcala, 
Guerrero, Mexico, Michoacan, Colima, San Luis, Sinaloa, Durango, 
Zacatecas, and Jalisco. Professor Starr (33-34) says: 

There are people of Aztec blood in the Republic of Mexico from the state of 
Sinaloa in the extreme North-west to the state of Chiapas in the South. In Sinaloa, 
Jalisco, Durango, San Luis Potosl, Colima, Vera Cruz, Hidalgo, Oaxaca, Chiapas, and 
Tabasco they occur, while the states of Guerrero, Mexico, Tlaxcala, Morelos, and 
Puebla are in large part occupied by them. In some districts Aztec is the common 
language. In the Republic there are probably more than 1,500,000 pure blood Indians 
who speak the Aztec language (this includes the Tlaxcalans). 

There is good evidence, nevertheless, that much of the area attributed 
to them, at least in northwestern Mexico, was standardized to Aztec 



52 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



in comparatively modern times. At the same time the dialects so 
standardized were probably related to Aztec, and no extreme error 
will result from classifying them all as Aztec dialects. The entire 
Aztec area, as given above, is consequently brought under the same 
color as the other Nahuatlan dialects on the accompanying map. 

Mixteo 

According to Clavigero (i, 6) — 

Mixtecapan, or the province of the Mixtecas, extended itself from Acatlan, a place 
distant an hundred and twenty miles from the court, towards the south-east, as far as the 
Pacific Ocean, and contained several cities and villages, well inhabited and of con- 
siderable trade. To the east of the Mixtecas were the Zapotecas. 

Orozco y Berra (1:189) says the Mixtecos extend into the states 
of Puebla, Guerrero, and Oaxaca, occupying in these the departments 
of Centro, Jamiltepec, and Teposcolula. Professor Starr (37) says: 

The country occupied by the Mixtecs extends eastward from the Pacific Coast in the 
high mountain country of the interior. Their territory lies within the states of Gue- 
rrero, Puebla, and Oaxaca, but chiefly in the last. 

The area is usually divided into two districts: Mixteca alta, or 
high Mixteca, and Mixteca baja, or low Mixteca; but this division 
appears to have been given with reference to topography rather than 
to difference in idioms, though it is said that there are several minor 
dialects. Orozco y Berra mentions eleven dialects, as follows: 



Mixteco of Cuilapa 
Mixteco of Mictlantongo 
Mixteco of Tamazulapa 
Mixteco of Xaltepec 
Mixteco of Nochiztlan 



Tepuzculano, in Oaxaca 
Mixteco of Yauhuatlan, in Oaxaca 
Mixteca Baja, in Puebla and Guerrero 
Montanes, in Guerrero 
Cuixtlahuac 
Mixteco of Tlaxiaco 

Professor Starr (37) says: 

. The language presents many dialects — Orozco listing eleven, of which that of Tepos- 
colula is claimed to be the most important. Not only are different towns said to have 
distinct dialects, but even parts of the same town.. 

No attempt has been made, so far as known, to determine the 
differences between these dialects or to locate them more exactly 
than as given by Orozco y Berra. 

Trike 

This language, which belongs to the Zapotecan family, is spoken by 
a small tribe residing in the central part of the Mixtec area, and is 
considered by Belmar as more directly related to Mixtec. 

Though giving the language as distinct without classifying it, 
Orozco y Berra locates the tribe in four curacies in Tehuantepec in 
association with, or in the vicinity of, the Chontal (1 :186). Although 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTEAL AMERICA 53 

in most cases our best guide, it appears that in this instance he is in 
error. Francisco Belmar, who has made a study of this and other 
related idioms, says the language was spoken in only six pueblos: 
San Andres Chicahuaxtla, Santo Domingo Chicahuaxtla, San Miguel 
Chicahuaxtla, San Jose Chicahuaxtla, San Martin Ytunyosa, and 
Copala, pertaining to the districts of Tlaxiaco (Tlajiaco) and Juxtla- 
huaca, which are in Oaxaca. 

Professor Starr (42) says none of the towns mentioned by Orozco y 
Berra are Trike; that three are Chontal, and the fourth (Tenango) 
is perhaps Zapotec, and that the real district of the Trike is situated 
in the high mountains "of the districts of Tlaxiaco and Juxtlahuaca, 
perhaps 200 miles in a direct line from Orozco y Berra's location. 
They form a little island of Trike speech in the midst of the Mixtec 
area. They occupy only five of the towns mentioned by Belmar, 
San Miguel Chicahuaxtla being a Mixtec town. The language spoken 
at Copala differs somewhat from that spoken by the other pueblos, 
though comprehensible to them. 

The area occupied by this tribe is marked on the present map in 
accordance with this evidence. 

Chocho 

Orozco y Berra (1 : 196) asserts that this language, which is 
related to Mixtec, has received the name Chiocho in Oaxaca; Popo- 
loco in Puebla; Tlapaneco in Guerrero; Teco inMichoacan; Pupuluca 
in Guatemala and in ancient Yope. As it is now known that Teco 
is Cuitlateco, a Mexican dialect, and that Pupuluca is given both as a 
Mayan and a Lencan idiom, these must be excluded; Yope also hav- 
ing dropped out of use, may be dismissed from consideration. This 
leaves only Chocho, Popoloco, and Tlapaneco to be considered. 
"Chuchon/' which Brinton adopts in his American Race, is merely a 
variation of the name Chocho. 

Professor Starr (71) assures us that in the district he visited 
there is a clear recognition that the language of the Chocho towns of 
Oaxaca is the same as the Popoloco of Puebla, and he is sustained 
by Orozco y Berra, but both are mistaken so far as the ancient 
Popoloco language is concerned, which was a dialect of Mixe. 
Professor Starr does not express an opinion as to the Tlapaneco. 

Sahagun (671) says the Tlapaneco language is precisely the same 
as those called Tenime, Pinome, Chinquime, .Chochontin, in the 
singular Pinotl, Chinquitl, Chochon. This brings Tlapaneco into 
the same relation as that given by Orozco y Berra. The name 
Chocho has therefore been applied to each of the three groups in the 
present map. 

The Chocho group, according to Professor Starr, was situated in the 
district of Coixtlahuaca. This agrees with Orozco y Berra's map, in 



54 



BUEEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



which the area is around the pueblo of Coixtlahuaca, although he 
does not include it in his list of pueblos (1 : 196). 

The Tlapanec group is located by Orozco y Berra in Guerrero, 
along the southwestern boundary of the Mixtec territory. The 
Popoloco, as stated above and demonstrated by a vocabulary col- 
lected by Dr. Berendt, anciently spoke a Mixe dialect. 

Amishgo 

(Synonym: Amusgo, Amuchco) 

This language belongs to the Zapotecan family and appears to be 
a dialect of Mixtec. According to Orozco y Berra' s map, which is 
followed here, the people speaking it occupied a wedge-shaped area 
extending northward from the Pacific coast into the Mixtec territory 
about the middle of its southern boundary. Villa-Senor y Sanchez 
(n, 162-163) refers to the tribe (sub tribe) and the idiom, but does 
not definitely give the location. It is noticeable that the names of 
several of the pueblos mentioned by Orozco y Berra end in tepee, 
indicating the presence of a Mexican element. 

Chatino 

The Chatino are resident in Oaxaca, in the departments of Centro 
and Jamiltepec, and are wedged between the Mixtec and the 
Zapotec, extending from the Pacific coast northward. Orozco y 
Berra (1:189) says merely, "In the departments of Centro and 
Jamiltepec between the Zapotec and Mixtec," and gives a list of the 
pueblos where the language is spoken. He places it in his list of 
unclassified languages. 

The author has not succeeded in finding the evidence by which to 
determine its linguistic relations, but following other writers it has 
been classed provisionally as Zapotecan. 

Mazateco 

The Mazatec tribe is located on our map in Oaxaca, along the 
northern border of the Zapotec area where the Puebla and Vera Cruz 
lines meet, extending slightly into the latter. Orozco y Berra says, 
in the department of Teotitlan; Professor Starr says, in the districts of 
Cuicatlan and Teotitlan; Belmar (2:1) says, in the district of Teotitlan 
del Camino, state of Oaxaca. Clavigero states that northward of the 
Mixtecas was the province of Mazatlan, the inhabitants of which were 
called Mazatecas (i, 6) . 

Orozco y Berra did not attempt to classify the language, but Pi- 
mentel was inclined to refer it to the "Mixteco-Zapoteco " stock, or 
what is here termed the Zapotecan family. This assignment is now 
universally accepted by students. It seems to be closely related to 
Chocho and Trike, especially the former. Belmar (2:1) says the lan- 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 55 



guage is divided into two principal dialects, Mazateco and Izcateco, 
but makes no reference to the respective localities in which they are 
spoken, nor is anything stated with respect to subtribes. 

- CUICATECO 

The people speaking this language are located by Orozco y Berra 
in the department of Teotitlan; Professor Starr says in what is now 
the district of Cuicatlan. Their area is marked by the former and 
also on our map on the northeastern border of the Mixtec territory 
and immediately south of the Mazatec. 

The language belongs to the Zapotecan family; it does not appear, 
however, to have been carefully studied. 

Chinantec 

According to Doctor Berendt (Brinton, 3: 144) the Chinantec 
language does not appear to be related to any of the surrounding 
tongues. He suggests as probable that there is to be found in it one 
of the original languages spoken before the advent of the Nahua, 
possibly the mythical Olmec. 

The people speaking this language inhabited Chinantla in the state 
of Oaxaca, on the western border of Vera Cruz, and along the north- 
ern boundary of the Zapotec territory. Orozco y Berra expressed 
the same opinion in regard to the language as that subsequently 
given by Berendt, above mentioned. Pimentel was inclined to place 
it in the Zapotecan family, and this is the opinion of Belmar; but 
with our present imperfect knowledge of the language it is best to 
make it the type of a distinct stock or family. 

Zapotec 

The Zapotec group held a large area east of the Mixtec territory, 
including what is known as the Valley of Oaxaca. What Professor 
Starr means by saying "east and west of the old Mixtec territory" 
(45) is not clear. Clavigero (i, 6) says, "to the east of the Mixtecas 
were the Zapotecas." u The Zapotecas," says Williams (226), "con- 
stitute the greater part of the population of the southern division of 
the Isthmus [of Tehuantepec]. " According to Shufeldt (125, 
133-134) the Zapotec tribe inhabits the Pacific plains and the ele- 
vated table-lands from Tarifa to Petapa. The area given by Orozco 
y Berra on his map may be accepted, therefore, as correct. 

As the Zapotec language is well known and is taken as the basis of 
comparison, it is necessary only to name the dialects which are men- 
tioned by different writers. These are: 

Zapotec Netzecho, which, according to Zapotec Ocotlan 

Villa-Seiior y Sanchez (n, 191-198), Zapotec Etla 

appears to have been the principal one Zapotec Iztepec 

Zapotec Zaachilla Zapotec Cajone 



56 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



Bui the differences between these dialects appear to have been 
comparatively slight and not coincident with marked subtribal dis- 
tinctions, hence no attempt has been made to place them on the map. 

The Mixtec and Zapotec Languages Compared 

Attention is called to the following question: Does the evidence 
justify the association of the Mixtec and Zapotec languages and 
their dialects in one stock, as they are now usually classified by phi- 
lologists? We notice first that Friedrich Miiller (Ab. 1) objects to 
this association, contending that the two languages are distinct. 

Although Pimentel (r, 319) speaks of Zapotecs and Mixtecs as 
"tribus o naciones hermanas," he does not attempt the presentation 
of any linguistic evidence (it may be he does so in the second edition, 
1875, 3 vols., 4to, of his Cuadro, which the author has not exam- 
ined) ; nor does Brinton or any other author at hand except Nicolas 
Leon and Seler. In his introduction to the reprint of Cordova's 
"Arte del Idioma Zapoteco" (p. lx et seq.), Leon, copying his data 
chiefly from Pimentel, presents some arguments in favor of relation- 
ship. What value is to be attached to his argument from the gram- 
matical standpoint the author can not say, but that of his brief 
word comparison is very small. First, it is brief, yet apparently as 
full as the data afforded; second, the words are culled to suit (observe 
Brinton's standard word comparison, 3:339); and after all this 
care the similarity in several instances is not apparent, and the com- 
parison forced. For example (p. lxvi) : Tres and ocho, the former 
ch-ona, the latter xo-ono in Zapotec, to compare with uni and una 
in Mixtec. 

Now "three" in Zapotec (same work, 176) is chona or cayo, accord- 
ing to relation, custom, etc.; and "eight," xoono or xono (see p. 177); 
ch and xo are never prefixes, so far as the author can find. In 
Charencey's comparison of Zapotec and Mixtec numerals ( Melanges, 
p. 44.) , which takes in the numbers from 1 to 20 and includes, by tens, 
30 to 100, there is scarcely the slightest resemblance, except in the plan 
or system of the. formation of numbers, which is the same in half a 
dozen stocks in that part of North America. (See also list below.) 
It is probable that "one" in Mixtec should be ce instead of ec, as 
"eleven" is mice (10 and 1). 

Seler (550 et seq.) gives a short grammatical comparison. 

Attention is called to what appears to be some wide differences. 

According to Pimentel (i, 41) the Mixtec letters (Spanish pro- 
nunciation, of course) are: 

achdeJiijJcmnnostuvxo 
~ks gs y z dz nd tn Ich 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 57 



The Zapotec letters (Pimentel, i, 321) are: 

abchegJiilcImnn oprtux 

y z th 

According to Cordova (73) c (hard) is sometimes used for g; also d 
for t, and s for x. 

From this it may be seen that the following are found in the 
former and wanting in the latter: 

d j s v Jcs gs dz nd tn Mi 

though d and s are sometimes used for t and x. 

In the latter the following are found which are wanting in the 
former : 

b g I p r th 

These are wide variations for cognate languages. 

Next is given a list of words for comparison. The author would 
take a selected list, such as is commonly used in obtaining vocabu- 
laries, but he has only meager lists of Mixtec words. 

LIST 





MTXTEC 


ZAPOTEC 


brother 


nani 


beechebiobi 


sister 


kuhua 


beelda 


father 


dzutu, yua 


bixoce, bixooze 


mother 


dzehe, xi dihi 


xifiaagaxana 


man 


yee 


beni, benni, beniati 


woman 


nahadzehe 


benigonnaa, benegonaa 


day 


yutnaa (manana) 


chii, gobiicha, chee 


bread (pan) 


dzita 


gueta 


teeth 


noho 


laya, chitalay, layachita. (Sing.) 


nose 


dzitu 


xii 


ears 


tutnu, dzoho 


tiaga 


forehead 


tnaa 


loocaa, loocuaa (of man or beast) 


tree 


yutme 


yaga 


hen 


tenoo 


berehualache, berezaa (bere?) 


white 


kuisi 


nagati, naquichi. yati 


I 


duhu, ndi 


naya, a, a 


thou 


doho, ndo 


lohui, loy, looy, lo 


we 


ndoo 


taono, tono, tona, no 


you (pi.) 


doho 


lato, to 


for 


saha 


niiani, niiateni 


on 


dodzo, kodza 


loo, chiiba, icqui 


between 


naho 


late, lahui 


with 


sihi 


nii, xii 


nephew 


dzasi, daxi 


xinibeecha (m), xinibezaana (f) 


head 


dzini 


icqui 


eye 


tenu 


bizaalos, loo 


mouth 


yuhu 


rua, rohua 


tongue 


yaa 


loochi, looche, luuchi 


hand 


daha 


naa 


house 


' huahi 


yuu, yoho 


foot 


saja 


niia (pi.) 



8347°— Bull. 44—11 5 



58 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



MIXTEC ZAPOTEC 



1 


ec (ce?) 


tobi, chaga 


ft 

2 


wui, uvui 


topa, cato 


3 


uni 


chona, cayo 


4 


kmi, qmi 


tapa, taa 


5 


hoho 


caayo 


6 


ino 


xopa 


7 


ucha 


caache 


8 


una 


xoono 


9 


ee 


caa, gaa 


10 


usi 


chii 


11 


usice 


chiibitobi 




usiwui 


chiibitopa, chiibicato 


13 


usiuni 


chiino, chiibichona 


20 


oco 


calle 


30 


oconsi 


callebichii 


40 


wuidzico 


toua 


60 


unidzico 


cayona 


100 


hohodzico 


cayoa 



We have also the comparison as judged by the ear. Remesal (321), 
speaking of Mixtec, says : 

Deprendio muy en breve la lengua de aquella nacion, que es dificultosa de saberse, 
por la gran equivocacion de los bocablos, para cuya distincion es necessario usar de 
ordinario del sonido de la nariz y aspiracion del alieto. 

Burgoa (Palestra, pt. 1. fol. 211, fide Bancroft, in, 749) calls it 
"la lengua dificultosissima en la pronunciacion, con notable variedad 
de terminos y vozes en unos y otros Pueblos." 

This statement of its being difficult and harsh appears to be gen- 
erally accepted. (See also Starr's statement, p. 37.) 

On the other hand, Brasseur de Bourbourg (Esquisses, 35, fide Ban- 
croft, in, 754) says, "La langue Zapoteque est d'une douceur et 
d'une sonorite qui rappelle l'ltalien." Burgoa speaks of it in much 
the same way (Bancroft, ibid). In the "advertencia" to the anony- 
mous Vocabulario Castellano-Zapoteco is the following statement: 
"Por la ortografia, y por muchas palabras yf rases, personas inteligentes 
juzgan que presenta un lenguaje bastante alterado ya." 

These facts appear to call for a careful re-examination of the subject 
by philologists. 

Chontal 

(Synonym: Tequistlateca) 

The tribe here alluded to under the name Chontal includes the 
Indians forming a small group residing in the southern portion of the 
Zapotec territory on the Pacific coast. The area occupied by them 
is chiefly in the district of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, extending to 
Guerrero. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 59 



Much confusion exists in regard to this name, as it is applied not 
only to the small group in Oaxaca but also to one in Tabasco and to 
another in Nicaragua, both of which are included by Orozco y Berra in 
the Mayan family. It is now known, however, that only those in 
Tabasco and some in Guatemala and Honduras to which the name 
has sometimes been applied belong to this family. The languages of 
the Oaxacan and Mcaraguan groups pertain to entirely different 
stocks. That of the former having received no satisfactory classifi- 
cation, Doctor Brinton (3: 112, 146) has applied to it the nameTequis- 
tlateca, from the principal village of the tribe, and placed it in the 
Yuman stock. As yet, however, this has not been accepted by 
linguists. 

Professor Starr (67) insists that there was no necessity for the 
change of name made by Doctor Brinton, as the people call them- 
selves Chontal and their language Chontal. He says also that 
Orozco y Berra is in error in calling some of the most important 
towns Trike pueblos; and that one in the list of Chontal towns he 
gives — Tlacolulita — is in reality Zapotec. Leon and Belmar have 
assigned the language to the Nahuatlan stock. 

As the name Chontal applied to other groups should be superseded 
by more correct titles, there appears to be no good reason why it 
could not be retained for the Oaxacan tribe, as this is the name the 
people apply to themselves, but for the present it is deemed best, 
following Brinton, to apply to it as a linguistic family the name 
Tequistlatecan. 

HUAVE 

(Synonyms: Huabi, Juave, Guavi, Wabi) 

A small tribe resident on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, among the 
marshes on the Pacific coast, at the point where the Zapotec and 
Zoque territories meet, as located on Orozco y Berra's map. They 
occupy at present only four villages, one of those mentioned by 
Orozco y Berra — Ixhuatan — long since having been abandoned. 
According to their traditions they came from some coast region far- 
ther to the south — the last-named writer says from South America. 
Brasseur de Bourbourg (1 :m, 3) says, on what authority is not stated, 
that in past centuries they possessed the province of Tehuantepec, 
and that they had been masters also of Soconusco, and had extended 
their conquest to Xalapa-la-Grande, of the Zapotec. 

So far as known, the language can not be assigned to any recognized 
stock, although Leon and Belmar believe it to be related to the Maya ; 
therefore for the present it must remain as the representative of a 
distinct family. 



60 



BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



MlXE 

{Synonym: Mize) 

According to Orozco y Berra (1:176) the territory of the Mixe 
embraced parts of the districts of Tlacolula, Villa- Alta, and Tehuan- 
tepec, in Oaxaca, bordering on the east with that of the Chiapanec. 
Professor Starr (53) locates them at present in the districts of Yaute- 
pec, Villa-Alta, and Tehuantepec. Garay says (60) : 

The Mixes constituted formerly a powerful nation, and they still occupy the land 
from the Sierra, north of Tehuantepec, to the district of Chiapas. In the Isthmus 
they inhabit only the village of Guichicovi, and a small portion of the Sierra, which 
is never visited . 

Seemingly forgetful of his statement in regard to the ancient terri- 
tory of the Huaves, or alluding to a different era, Brasseur de Bour- 
bourg (l:m, 34-35) says the Mixes possessed anciently the greater 
part of Tehuantepec, Soconusco, and the Zapotecan area, giving 
Burgoa as his authority. The Popoloco of Puebla are a branch. 

The language of the Mixe is now fully recognized as related to 
the Zoque, and the two form the chief idioms of the Zoquean 
family. 

Zoque 

Orozco y Berra (1:170) describes the territory of the Zoque as 
embracing parts of Chiapas, Tabasco, and Oaxaca, joining on the 
north the Mexican and Chontal areas, on the east the Tzental, Zotzil, 
and Chiapanec, on the south the Mexican, and on the west the 
Zapotec and Mixe areas. Williams (225) says: 

The Zoques inhabit the mountainous region to the east, from the valley of the 
Chicapa on the south, to the Rio del Corte on the north. Originally occupying a small 
province lying on the confines of Tobasco, they were subjugated by the expedition 
to Chiapas under Luis Marin. 

The language, now well known, is taken as the typical idiom of the 
Zoquean family. 

Doctor Brinton (3: 144) includes in his classification of this family 
two subtribes, the Chimalapas, "a subtribe of the Zoques" (no 
locality given), and the Tapijulapanes 1 1 on Rio de la Sierra," evi- 
dently the Tapachulteca (or Tapachula as on the map) . The author 
has not succeeded in finding the authority on which the first is based, 
or whether it is to be taken as indicating a different dialect. How- 
ever, this is repeated by Grasserie (6) . The second may be based on 
the quotation in Pimentel (n, 236-243). But whether the language 
here referred to is to be considered different from Zoque is not clear, 
unless this inference be deduced from the few words and expressions 
given, which appear hardly to justify it. The relationship of Ta- 
pachulteca to Zoquean is, however, confirmed by Sapper. 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTKAL AMEBIC A 61 

CENTRAL AMERICA 

As here defined, Central America includes not the group of repub- 
lics to which the name is usually applied, but the geographical and 
ethnic Central America, lying between the Isthmus of Tehuantepec 
and the South American continent. 

Chiapanec 

Chiapanec was spoken in the interior of the state of Chiapas. 
Brasseur de Bourbourg (2 : clvii, cxcix) places the tribe between the 
Zotziles or Quelenes on the south [east] and the Zoques on the north 
[west]; Orozco y Berra (1: 172) says, in Acala district "del Centro," 
and in the village of Chiapa, and in Suchiapa, district of the west. 
Pinart (in preface to Albornoz and Barrientos, 5) says, probably fol- 
lowing Orozco y Berra, that this language was spoken in the village 
of Chiapa, at Acala, Suchiapa, and some other villages of the same 
locality, in the department of Chiapas. 

The language, although as yet not thoroughly studied, is sufficiently 
known to make it the type of the small stock bearing the name 
Chiapanecan, which is represented at some two or three points far- 
ther south. 

Chontal 1 (of Tabasco) 

As stated above, there has been much confusion in the use of the 
name Chontal, which has been applied to tribes in Oaxaca, Tabasco, 
Guatemala, and Nicaragua, belonging to three or four different lin- 
guistic stocks. Those here referred to are, or were, resident in what is 
now the state of Tabasco. Herrera says (n, dec. 3, 211) that in Tabasco 
three languages were spoken: Chontal, used by the greater part of the 
inhabitants; Zoque, spoken in the sierras; and Mexican, which was 
brought into this region by the garrisons of the two forts Monte- 
zuma had established in it, namely, Zimatlan and Xicalango. That 
Orozco y Berra has mistaken the application of the name is evident, 
yet it does not follow that his map is incorrect as to the areas marked 
thereon. 

Doctor Brinton (3: 149) informs us that it is seen from a manu- 
script vocabulary of the language by Doctor Berendt, that the Chontal 
of Tabasco belongs to the Mayan family and is practically identical 
with the Tzental dialect. Doctor Berendt (2: 137) confirms this and 
states that it shows only a dialectic variation from Tzental and 
Zotzil. This corresponds with Stoll's classification, whose vocabulary 
shows that it belongs to the same group as the Tzental and Choi. 
Although Carl Sapper (2:359 and Carte viii et al.) recognizes 



1 This dialect and those which follow as far as Maya, inclusive, except Tapachulteca, belong to the 
Mayan linguistic family. 



62 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



the Chontal through Stoll, he includes the area in the Choi type in 
his maps showing the distribution of the types of ruins. On the other 
hand, Juarros (i, 14) places Palenque in the province of the Tzentals. 

With this evidence only, it is difficult to decide as to either name or 
area, and the author has concluded, therefore, that it is best to follow 
Orozco y Berra's mapping, which appears to be at least substantially 
correct, retaining the name Chontal temporarily, with the addition of 
the words a of Tabasco." Sapper's archeological types are too 
uncertain to be used as a guide in this respect. 

Tzotzil 

{Synonym: Zotzil) 

As this is one of the well-known languages of the Mayan family, it 
is necessary only to indicate the locality in which it was spoken, and 
the possible synonyms. 

The only question in the latter respect which arises is, whether the 
Quelene are to be considered the same as the Tzotzil, or whether they 
were two groups speaking the same or different dialects. That the 
name Quelene for some time has dropped out of use is evident. 
Herrera (u, dec. 4, 220) says that the province of Chiapas was divided 
among four nations, with different languages — the Chiapaneca,Zoque, 
Zeltale (Tzental), and the Quelenes, omitting any mention of the 
Tzotzil, who certainly resided in Chiapas. The inference from this 
fact is that by Quelene we are to understand Tzotzil. On the other 
hand, Juarros (1 :n, 32) mentions in his list of Mayan and neighbor- 
ing dialects the Tzotzil and the Tzental, but omits the Quelene. 
Orozco y Berra (1:168) thinks that from the Quelene "result' 5 the 
Tzotzil and the Tzental. Doctor Brinton (3:86) omits the Quelene 
from consideration; but Stoll (2:86) says he finds the Tzotzil 
alluded to by the Spanish historians under the name " Quelenes." 
The latter conclusion appears to be the correct one. 

In marking the territory of this tribe Orozco. y Berra's map has been 
followed in the main, which, according to his usual custom, is based on 
the pueblos in which the language was spoken. In addition to the 
work of Eemesal and other published works, Orozco y Berra made 
use of a manuscript furnished him by the Bishop of Chiapas. 

Tzental 

The territory of the Tzental is given by most authorities as 
included in the present state of Chiapas. Gage (236) says — 

The province called Zeldales [Tzentals] lyeth behind this of the Zoques, from the 
North Sea within the continent, running up towards Chiapa and reaches in some 
parts near to the borders of Comatitlan, northwest. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 63 

Orozco y Berra (1 : 169) says the language is peculiar to Chiapas, and 
this conclusion is followed by most recent authorities. As we have 
seen, Juarros includes Palenque in the area in which this language was 
spoken. Brasseur de Bourbourg (1 : 1, 63-64) hesitates between Tzental 
and Maya (proper), but the inscriptions agree better with the former 
than with the latter. According to the statement of Stoll (2:84), 
Doctor Berendt affirms that later the language spoken there was 
Choi, and this corresponds with Orozco y Berra's map and with 
Sapper's conclusion (2). It is therefore an undecided question how 
far northward the Tzental territory extended at the date of discovery. 
If Sapper's districting of the ruin -types (2: map ym) could be 
accepted as a correct mapping of ethnic divisions, the Choi formerly 
extended over the Chontal area, the Palenque region, and the section 
occupied by the western Lacandon. This evidence is not of a char- 
acter to be satisfactory in deciding this question, however, especially 
as Brinton, and apparently Berendt also, consider them relatively late 
comers to this region. The writer has been unable to find data 
on which to base a conclusion regarding this question, but is 
inclined to agree with Sapper in considering the ruins of the middle 
and lower Usumacinta valley as more nearly allied to those of Copan 
and Quirigua than to those of the intermediate Peten region. In this 
comparison, which must be close, details as well as general forms 
must be appealed to. These bring the ruins of Quirigua (which are 
ascribed by him to the Choi) and those of Copan (which he ascribes 
to the Chorti tribe) nearer to those of Palenque, Piedras Negras 
(see Mahler), and Menche in the Usumacinta valley than to those of 
the Peten region. This question will be further discussed, however, 
under Choi. The writer has followed Orozco y Berra chiefly, though 
not exactly, in outlining the area of the Tzental language. 

Chol 

The authorities differ widely as to the area over which this idiom 
was spoken. Orozco y Berra (1:167) says the Choi constituted a 
tribe established from remote times in Guatemala, which was divided 
into two factions by the incursions of the Maya. One of these divi- 
sions, he says, is encountered in eastern Chiapas, and the other, very 
isolated, in Vera Paz. He maps only the western division, as the 
other division lay beyond the Mexican boundary. Sapper, in his 
map v, which relates to present conditions, limits them to a small 
area in northern Chiapas, but in his map vm, showing the areas of 
the ruin-types, the Choi type is in two sections, of which the western 
covers eastern Tabasco and northeastern Chiapas extending into 
northwestern Guatemala; the eastern division includes the extreme 
•northeastern corner of Guatemala and a strip of Honduras along its 



64 



BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



£bull. 44 



northwestern border. Stoll, in his map, gives an area extending 
across the north-central portion of Guatemala, spreading out to a 
considerable extent around the Gulf of Dulce. The fact that a por- 
tion of the tribe still resides in the vicinity of the Gulf of Dulce is 
confirmed by Maudslay. As Stoll's map relates to an earlier date 
than either of the others, and is based chiefly on the data furnished 
by Juarros, who names the pueblos where it was spoken, it probably 
gives more correctly the area formerly occupied by the tribe. As this 
author (Stoll) limits his map to Guatemala, the area in Chiapas is not 
given; however, it is referred to in his text (2:90) as including the 
pueblos Santo Domingo del Palenque, San Pedro Sabana,Salto deAgua, 
Tumbala and Tila in Chiapas. He adds that a few Choi families are 
found in Tenosique in Tabasco. He states also that they claim their 
territory formerly extended from the borders of Chiapas to the 
Gulf of Dulce. Charencey (96) says the Choi commence about 23 
leagues east of Cahabon. How this is to be understood is not very 
clear. The area as given on the present map is a modification of 
Stoll's map, so as to form a compromise with the other authorities. 
Pimentel and Orozco y Berra give Mopan as a synonym of Choi, 
though by others it is considered a subdialect of Maya proper. 

Chanabal 

(Synonym: Tojolabal) 

The small tribe speaking this idiom is located by Orozco y Berra 
along the southeastern border of Chiapas where it joins the Guate- 
malan territory; Sapper's map v shows two small areas, one within 
the bounds given by Orozco y Berra between the areas assigned the 
Jacalteca and the Chicomucelteca, and the other about the pueblo 
of Comitan and wholly embraced in the Tzental territory: this map, 
however, relates to present conditions. Orozco y Berra seems to 
have included portions of the Chicomuceltecan population, as one 
of the pueblos he names (1:167) is Chicomucelo. Charencey (95) 
limits the tribe chiefly to the parish of Comitan. 

The Chanabal (Berendt writes Chaneabal) is placed by Stoll in his 
Tzental group, a classification which is now generally accepted. 
The area, as mapped in the present work, is a compromise between 
that of Sapper and Orozco y Berra, as the former is based on the 
present reduced state of the tribe, while the latter includes areas 
belonging to other tribes. In a subsequent work (1:132) Stoll 
includes the Jacaltenango pueblo in the Chuje (or Chuhe) territory, 
and corrects the mistake into which he had been led by Juarros in 
naming the language of this section Pokomam. 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 65 



Chicomucelteca 

This is the idiom spoken by a small tribe first brought to notice 
by Sapper, who considered it a dialect of Huasteca. He locates the 
tribe in southeastern Chiapas, adjoining the southern Chanabal area 
on the west, including the pueblos Chicomucelo and Montenegro. 
His mapping has been followed. 

Motozintleca 

This is also an idiom first mentioned, so far as the writer's data 
show, by Sapper. The locality indicated on his map v is a small area 
about Motozintla in the southeastern corner of Chiapas, in the western 
border of the Mam territory as given by him. Judging by the brief 
vocabulary it seems to be closely related to the Jacalteca. By mis- 
take the Nahuatlan red on the linguistic map has been carried over 
the territory occupied by them. 

Tapachulteca 

Sapper mentions (2 : 244) and marks on his map v an idiom under 
this name which he makes a dialect of the Mixe, now well nigh extinct. 
The small area marked on his map is in the extreme southeastern 
corner of Chiapas and in the southern border of the Mam territory, 
embracing the pueblo of Tapachula. Charencey (91), Orozco y 
Berra (on map), and Stoll (1 :134) state that the language spoken at 
Tapachula was Mam, but as the original tongue is dying out, both 
languages are probably spoken there. (See Zoque, p. 60.) 

SUBINHA 

Nothing further has been found in regard to this idiom than the 
brief vocabulary given in the Lenguas Indigenas de Centro-America 
en el Siglo XVIII. According to the brief statement at the end it was 
copied from the original "existente en este Archivo de Indias, bajo la 
rotulacion de 'Audiencia de Guatemala. — Duplicados de Gobernadores 
Presidentes.— 1788-1790.' " 1 

No attempt has been made to locate on the map the region in which 
this idiom was used. 

Jacalteca 

The writer has grave doubts as to the propriety of retaining 
Jacalteca and Chuje as names of different dialects. The vocabulary 
of the Chuje, which appears to have been obtained only by Rockstroh, 

1 It seems to have been obtained or transmitted with some explanations by Josef Anselmo Ortiz, who dates 
his communication Zocaltenango. As Zocaltenango is evidently the same as Jacaltenango, where the Jacal- 
teca idiom (a close relation of the Chuje) was spoken, the vocabulary, which does not appear to have been 
well recorded, may pertain to one of the several dialects of this region. 



66 



BUBEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



is very brief and, if the writer may judge, not very carefully taken, 
notwithstanding that Stoll has followed it. Chuje and Jacalteca (of 
which we have a fuller vocabulary) are certainly very closely allied. 
The latter was spoken throughout a small area around the pueblo 
of Jacaltenango near the northwestern boundary of Guatemala. 
This territory is included in the area marked xv (?) on Stoll's map. 
Misled by Juarres, Stoll has marked the red area around Jacaltenango 
as Pokomam territory, an error he subsequently corrected. (See 
Po'komam.) It is located on the present map, pending the discovery 
of further evidence as to relationship with the Chuje. 

Chuje 

{Synonym: Chuhe) 

This idiom, at present classed as a dialect of Choi, is most closely 
related to, if not identical with, Jacalteca; it is spoken now, accord- 
ing to Stoll (1:135), from Nenton to San Sebastian on the east. 
The area as marked by Sapper is in Guatemala near the western 
border, adjoining the Jacaltecan territory on the north, but does 
not include Nenton (or Neuton, as he writes it), leaving it a little to 
the west of the boundary he gives. His mapping is here followed, 
except that the boundary is carried westward to include Nenton. 

Achis 

It is said that this dialect (now extinct) was formerly spoken in Gua- 
temala — Brinton(3 : 158) sa}^s in eastern Guatemala. As yet the writer 
has found no data on which this conclusion could be based except a 
mere mention by Palacio (20). As he names this tribe in connection 
with the Mam, their location in the eastern part of the republic would 
seem to be incorrect. Is it not possible they were the Aguacateca 
or the Jacalteca, tribes bordering the Mam territory ? Of course this 
name has not been placed on the map. 

Mam 

{Synonym: Zaklohpakap) 

As this language, which is considered one of the most archaic of 
the Mayan stock (Huasteca alone standing before it in this respect) , 
has been rather carefully studied, it is necessary to call attention 
only to the habitat of the tribe. This was the western portion of 
Guatemala, extending westward for a short distance into Soconusco 
and southward to the Pacific Ocean. As Stoll's map is restricted to 
Guatemala, it does not show the extension into Soconusco. Orozco y 
Berra marks a small area "Maine" in the extreme southeastern corner 
of Soconusco, but Sapper gives a larger extension; the latter has been 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 67 

followed in this respect in the map accompanying this paper, though 
Stoll has been the writer's guide as to the portion in Guatemala. 

Ixil 

This dialect is placed by Stoll in his Mam division of the Mayan stock. 
As the language is now well enough understood to classify it properly, 
it is necessary that we note here only the habitat. Stoll, the author- 
ity followed in this case, locates the area occupied by the tribe slightly 
west of the center of Guatemala, including the pueblos of Nebaj, 
Cotzal, and Chajul as the chief centers of population. As given by 
him, the Rio Negro or Chixoy formed the eastern boundary of the 
tribal territory at the time to which his map relates. The reduced 
area given by Sapper is included in that given by Stoll. According 
to the latter, it lay between the Mam area on the west and that of the 
Kekchi on the east, joining the Kiche territory on the south. 

Aguacateca 

This idiom also is placed by Stoll and philologists generally in the 
Mam division. The small area occupied by the tribe included Agua- 
cateca and the present Huehuetenango, joining the Mam area on the 
north and west, and the Kiche territory on the east and south. The 
reduced area given by Sapper falls within the bounds indicated 
by Stoll. Although the dialect agrees most nearly with Mam, 
the strong influence of the neighboring Kiche and Ixil dialects is 
apparent in the vocabulary. 

Kiche 

{Synonym: Quiche) 

The Kiche (or Quiche) dialect is second in importance and terri- 
torial extent only to the Maya (proper) of the languages of the 
Mayan stock; however, it is now so well known that comments are 
unnecessary here. Stoll makes it the basis of his Kiche division 
of the stock. The area occupied by the tribe was and still is quite 
extensive, including considerable territory in central Guatemala 
about the headwaters of Rio Motagua, and extending thence around 
the western side of Lake Atitlan southward to the Pacific Ocean, this 
southern extension being in contact with the Mam territory on the 
west and the Cakchikel territory on the east. Included are the fol- 
lowing among the more important towns or pueblos: Santa Cruz 
Quiche, Rabinal, Totonicapan, Quetzaltenango, and Mazatenango. 
The somewhat diminished area designated by Sapper is included in 
the bounds given by Stoll. 

Cakchikel 

This is one of the dialects embraced by Stoll in his Kiche division : 
it is, in fact, but a subdialect of the Kiche. The tribe lives in the 



68 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



central part of southern Guatemala. Their territory formerly in- 
cluded the area between Lake Atitlan and the vicinity of the present 
city of Guatemala, and extended southward to the Pacific Ocean, 
embracing the noted ruins of Santa Lucia and Iximchi. This area 
connects on the north and west with that of the Kiche, and on the 
east with the Pokomam and the Pipil territory. Among the impor- 
tant towns included are Solola, Tecpam, Chumaltenango, and An- 
tigua. The diminished area on Sapper's map is included in that given 
by Stoll, except at the northeast, where Sapper extends it northward 
to the Rio Grande (Motagua) . This discrepancy is due chiefly to the 
difference in the maps with respect to the location of the river. , 

Pupuluca (a). — The vocabulary on which this supposed dialect is 
based was taken by Dr. Karl Scherzer (28-37) at St. Mary near 
Antigua, which is included in the Cakchikel territory. Doctor Brin- 
ton's assertion (3 : 153) that "it is nothing more than the ordinary 
Cakchiquel dialect of that locality" seems to be justified by a com- 
parison of the vocabularies, the difference arising chiefly from 
Scherzer's method of spelling and the insertion of prefixes. Scherzer 
names it "Pupuluca Cakchikel." It is not entitled to a place as a 
dialect. 

Tzutuhil 

(Synonym: Zutuhil) 

This is a dialect of the Kiche division spoken over a small area 
around the southern shore of Lake Atitlan, with the ancient Atitlan 
as its chief pueblo. The territory of the tribe is wedged in between 
the Kiche and Cakchikel areas. The bounds given by Stoll and Sap- 
per are substantially the same and are followed on the accompany- 
ing map. 

USPANTECA 

The dialect of a small tribe situated near the center of Guatemala, 
precisely at the meeting point of the Kiche, Ixil, and Pokonchi ter- 
ritories, and, according to Stoll's map, in the great bend of the Chixoy 
river (Rio Negro). The chief pueblo is San Miguel Uspantan. Sap- 
per's map places the area slightly farther from the river. 

Kekchi 

(Synonyms: K'aktchi or Quekchi\ 

Kekchi was spoken by a considerable tribe in central Guatemala. 
The area occupied spread out on both sides of the upper Caha- 
bon river, extending westward to the river Chixoy, including the 
Coban, San Pedro Carcha, Cahabon, and Lanquin pueblos. Pinart 
(4 : preface) says this language is spoken throughout the ancient 
province of Vera Paz, and that it has various dialects. It is classed 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL. AMERICA 69 

by St oil in his Pokonchi division. The writer has followed Stoll' s 
map, with which Sapper's agrees so far as he has given the area. 

Pokonchi 

This Mayan dialect, which Stoll has made the type of his Pokonchi 
division, was spoken throughout a fairly extensive territory in the 
center of Guatemala, about the headwaters of the Cahabon river, which 
included the pueblos Tactic, Tamaja, and Tucuru. Its northern 
border, where it joined the Kekchi territory, extended a short distance 
south of Coban. Stoll's map has been followed, as Sapper's shows no 
difference except in the extent of the area. 

POKOMAM 

{Synonym: Pokam) 

This Mayan dialect, taken by some students as the type of the 
Pokonchi division of the stock, was spoken throughout a consider- 
able region in southeastern Guatemala, including the capital of the 
republic, extending northward to the Rio Grande or upper Motagua, 
and eastward to the boundary line between Guatemala and Salvador. 
Other pueblos included are Amatitlan, Jalapa,. Petapa, and Mita. 
The territory given on the accompanying map is in accordance with 
the eastern Pokomam area given by Stoll. The smaller western area 
around Jacaltenango marked Pokomam was so given erroneously 
on the authority of Juarres, as already stated. The error is corrected 
by Stoll in his Die Sprache der Ixil-Indianer (1: 152-153). Sapper's 
map shows two small detached areas, one at the western extremity 
and the other in the eastern part of the area assigned by Stoll, the 
remainder being marked as now wholly Spanish. 

Chorti 

This language is included by Stoll in his Pokonchi division, seem- 
ingly on the strength of the opinion expressed by Brasseur de Bour- 
bourg (2: pp. lxxxiv, lxxxv, note 4), as he gives no vocabulary, but 
Sapper is inclined to place it in the Tzental group. Judging by the 
brief vocabulary, its closest affinity seems to be with Choi and Tzen- 
tal, indicating that Sapper's conclusion, in which he follows Brinton, 
is correct. The territory throughout which Chorti was spoken lies 
along the eastern border of Guatemala, extending into Honduras and in- 
cluding the site of Copan. Eisen, as quoted by Stoll (2 : 107) , includes 
in the area Copan (in Honduras) and the high mountains around 
Jocotan (in Guatemala). Charencey (96) says the Chorti ''flourished 
in all the province of Chiquimula (Rep. Guat.) up to the banks of 
the Gulf of Honduras [Dulce ?] and along the borders of the Rio 
Polichic [Motagua]." In his map (vni) of ruin sites Sapper gives an 



70 



BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



area of Chorti types extending from Esquipulas (on the boundary line 
between Guatemala and Honduras) on the south, northward to and 
including Quirigua, and from Chiquimula (Guatemala) on the west to 
Santa Rosa (Honduras) on the east, including Copan. In his map V, 
showing present conditions, the remains of the tribe are limited to a 
few very small isolated areas, chiefly about Chiquimula and Copan. 
In the map accompanying the present volume Sapper's boundaries 
on his map viii have been adopted in a somewhat modified form, 
as Stoll's area does not appear to extend far enough northward; 
moreover, he does not mark on his map the portion in Honduras. 

Maya Proper 

{Synonym: Mayathan.) 

This language, here termed in its limited sense Maya proper 
which Berendt (2 : 137), following Landa (14), designates " Maya- 
than," according to the latter author (30) was spoken throughout 
the peninsula. Knowledge obtained since Landa's day has shown 
that the language, including some minor dialects, was used not only 
throughout the peninsula but had penetrated the borders of some of 
the adjoining territories. Galindo (148-149) says that in advance 
of the conquest by the Spaniards the people speaking this language 
occupied all the peninsula of Yucatan, including the districts of 
Peten, British Honduras, and the eastern part of Tabasco; Pimentel 
(ii, 3) says, all Yucatan, Isle of Carmen, Pueblo of Montecristo in 
Tabasco, and Palenque in Chiapas. The evidence which has been 
presented and a comparison of the inscriptions and ruin types tends 
to exclude Palenque. 

MAYA DIALECTS 

Besides the chief language spoken throughout the peninsula — the 
Maya proper — there were three dialects, or rather subdialects, the 
differences being too slight to constitute distinct dialects, though, 
with the probable exception of the last, they represent separate 
tribes. These, which have been noticed by philologists, are Lacan- 
don, Itza (or Peten), and Mopan. 

Lacandon. — The people speaking this dialect inhabit, or in the past 
have inhabited, the mountainous region of the upper Usumacinta 
river, in northwestern Guatemala and eastern Chiapas. Escobar 
(94) says : 

A distinction ought to be drawn between the Western and Eastern Lacandones. All 
the country lying on the W., between the bishopric of Ciudad Real and the province 
of Vera Paz was once occupied by the Western Lacandones. . . . The country of 
the Eastern Lacandones may be considered as extending from the mountains of 
Chamma, a day and a half from Coban, along the borders of the Rio de la Pasion to 
Peten, or even farther, 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTEAL AMERICA 71 

Juarros (2 : 271) places the Lacandon along the Passion river. 
Squier (2 : 65) gives as their habitat "the vast region lying between 
Chiapa, Tabasco, Yucatan, and the republic of Guatemala." 
Berendt (1 : 425) says " they are reduced to-day to a very insignificant 
number living on and near Passion river and its tributaries." Stoll, 
whose map is limited to Guatemala, indicates for this people only an 
area in the extreme northwestern corner of this republic. Sapper 
marks on his map v the Lacandon area as partly in Chiapas and 
partly in Guatemala, the territory in the former, which includes the 
larger portion, being situated in a triangle west of the Usumacinta 
river, adjoining the Tzental area; and the latter as extending in a 
narrow strip along the Chixoy, or Rio Negro, southward into the 
border of the Kekchi territory. 

It is stated by some authorities that the Western Lacandones, 
who they claim are now extinct, spoke a language different from that 
used by those of the east. A subsequent examination has shown that 
the former people probably belonged to the Choi group, a conclusion 
which would account for the supposition that they are extinct. 
Charnay (437) places them on both sides of the Usumacinta in the 
region of Lorillard City (or Menche). They are not indicated on the 
present map. 

Itza (or Peten). — S toll's map gives no defined area for the people 
speaking this dialect, including it under Maya. This course is 
followed by Sapper also, on his map v; but in his map vni, showing 
the distribution of the ruin-types, he marks as the area of the Peten 
tribes all the northern part of Guatemala (except a small strip on the 
western side), extending south to the sixteenth parallel, or to the 
border of the Kekchi territory, and eastward to the Caribbean sea, 
omitting the middle portion of both the Choi and the Mopan areas 
as given by Stoll. From the writer's study of Villagutierre's History of 
the Conquest of the Itza he receives the impression that at the height 
of their power the Itza had extended their territory for some distance 
northward, in the form of a triangle, into the southern part of the 
state now designated Yucatan. This author says (489) that they 
hold toward the south the province of Vera Paz in the kingdom of 
Guatemala ; toward the north provinces of Yucatan ; toward the east 
to the sea; toward the west to Chiapas, and southeast to the borders 
of Honduras. This region corresponds very nearly with the area 
marked on Sapper's map vm, but it unquestionably encroaches on 
the territory of other peoples. 

The language of the Itza was but slightly different from pure 
Maya; the language spoken by the inhabitants of Chichen Itza in 
the peninsula does not appear to have been other than pure Maya. 

Mopan. — Very little is known in regard to this language, as no 
vocabulary of it was ever obtained, so far as the writer is aware, 



72 



BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



unless, as he supposes, the few words gathered by Sapper belong to it. 
These, so far as they go, seem to confirm the historical evidence that 
the language was very closely related to, if not identical with, Maya 
proper. Pimentel and Orozco y Berra give Mopan as a synonym 
of Choi. Stoll assigns to them a considerable area in northern Guate- 
mala in the form of a belt across the state between the Choi and Itza areas 
as laid down by him. Sapper gives as the area of his "Maya of San 
Luis" (which he identifies as the Mopan) a small belt extending across 
the southern extremity of British Honduras, and westward beyond the 
border of Guatemala, including San Luis. Stoll says (2 : 94) that the 
Mopanas had on the south the Choles, on the east and north the 
Itzas, and on the west the Lacandones. As his map is limited to 
Guatemala it does not extend the area into British Honduras. 

Alagtjxlac 

Although this language is now extinct, the evidence presented by 
Doctor Brinton in a paper read before the American Philosophical 
Society, November 4, 1887, proves beyond doubt that it belonged to 
the Nahuatlan family and was closely related to, if not identical 
with, the Pipil dialect spoken in the territory adjoining. According 
to this evidence the area throughout which it was spoken was sub- 
stantially the same as that laid down by Stoll — namely, in the 
eastern part of Guatemala, on the Rio Motagua. It included the 
pueblos San Cristobal Acasaguastlan, Chimalapan, Usumatlan, and 
Tecolutan, and, as Doctor Brinton states, also San Agustin. The 
data thus made known since St oil's work was published require a 
slight modification of the boundaries given this tribe by him. Doc- 
tor Brinton says Chorti was spoken in the adjoining area, but Stoll 
surrounds the southern half by the detached Pipil area, and the 
northern half by the Choi area. 

Pipil 

As is well known, this language belongs to the Nahuatlan stock 
and is closely related to Aztec, being, in fact, but a dialect of that 
language. 

The early habitat of the tribe as determined by Stoll and Sapper 
agrees so closely with that given by Squier (4 : 348 ) and Juarros (1 : ii, 8 1 ) , 
and the relation of the tribes as found by Alvarado in 1524, that it is 
necessary to describe here only their situation as set forth by the first 
two authorities. They were located in two separate areas. The 
larger territory lay chiefly along the Pacific coast in southeastern 
Guatemala, from the meridian of Escuintla eastward into Salvador 
to the lower southward stretch of the Lempa river. This terri- 
tory was intercepted, however, by that of the Xinca tribe and by a 
colony of the Lencan stock, being thus divided into two parts, one in 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OP MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 73 

Guatemala and the other and chief portion in Salvador. Sapper also 
represents a narrow extension of the Pokomam territory into the 
western section. The other division was located along the upper 
Motagua river in eastern Guatemala between the Choi and Pokomam 
areas. As stated above, the Alaguilac language, spoken throughout 
a small adjoining area, was probably identical with the Pipil. 

Although on the accompanying map Santa Lucia Cozumalhuapa is 
included in the Cakchikel area, the writer is inclined to ascribe the 
sculptures at this place to the Pipil tribe, or at least to the Nairn atlan 
stock. 

XlNCA 

{Synonym: Jinca) 

This language, which, with its dialects, appears to form an inde- 
pendent stock, here named Xincan, was spoken throughout an area 
of limited extent along the Pacific coast, in the extreme southeastern 
part of Guatemala, extending from the Rio Michatoyat eastward to the 
boundary of the republic. It embraces three closely allied dialects, 
which it is deemed unnecessary to mark on the map, to wit, Sina- 
cantan, Jupiltepeque, and Jutiapa, spoken, respectively, in the 
pueblos of the same names. Brief vocabularies of the three are given 
by Brinton (2) . 

Lenca 

This language, which forms a distinct stock — the Lencan — 
seems to be known in some four or five closely allied dialects, the 
term Lenca not being applied to any one dialect, but comprehending 
all. From Squier's investigations and other data it appears that 
the Indians speaking this language formerly occupied a large area 
in central and western Honduras, extending to the Pacific through 
that part of Salvador lying between Lempa river and the Bay 
of Fonseca. The small district in southeastern Guatemala along 
the western bank of the lower Rio de la Paz, marked by Stoll (2) 
on his map as Pupuluca, from data furnished by Juarros, must be 
Lencan territory. There can be but little doubt that the people 
occupying this area and speaking the so-called Pupuluca dialect 
were closely related to or identical with the Lenca and constituted 
a colony of that tribe. This is clearly to be inferred from the fact 
that they were related to and spoke a language similar to that of 
the people of eastern Salvador, who were certainly Lenca. It is 
unnecessary to enter here into a further discussion of the varied 
use of the terms Popoloca and Pupuluca. In his List of Families 
and Dialects the writer has designated the Mayan Pupuluca 
(spoken near Antigua, Guatemala) as Pupuluca (a), and the Lencan 
Pupuluca (spoken along the Rio de la Paz) as Pupuluca (b). The 
8347°— Bull. 44—11 6 



74 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



mistake of Stoll (2:27) in calling the Pupuluca (b) a Mixe dialect 
is pointed out by Brinton (3:152). The latter author appears to 
have made precisely the same mistake, however, in his paper on 
the Xinca Indians, read before the American Philosophical Society, 
October 17, 1884. On his map viii Sapper places a Lencan colony — 
possibly intended to correspond with Pupuluca (b) — slightly farther 
to the northeast than the locality given by Stoll, who follows 
Juarros. The last-named authority (l:i, 98) mentions Conguaco 
as the pueblo of the people speaking this dialect, which is in the area 
marked by him. The other dialects were Guajiquero, Intibucat, 
Opatoro, and Similiton, spoken in central Honduras in and about 
the pueblos of the same names, respectively. Sapper (1 : 28) 
mentions also as dialects Chilanga and Guatijigua, spoken in and 
about villages so named, in northeastern Salvador. He fails, 
however, to furnish vocabularies by which to determine relation- 
ship, having obtained, it seems, only twenty words of the former 
dialect. Nevertheless, as the pueblos are in the region where Lenca 
prevailed, there can be but little doubt that they are local variations 
of that language. No attempt has been made to mark the areas 
of these dialects on the accompanying map. It is possible the 
Chondal of Squier, mentioned below, should be considered a dialect, 
for it appears from a statement by Brinton that Desire Pector termed 
them "Chontal-Lencas." 

From the data obtainable it is impossible to define accurately the 
boundaries of the chief Lencan area. The writer has been guided 
in this respect chiefly by Squier (4:378 et seq.), omitting, of course, 
his conclusion that the Jicaque and Paya belong to the same stock 
as the Lenca. He was inclined to include geographically not only 
the department of San Miguel in Salvador and those of Santa 
Barbara and Comayagua in Honduras, but also Choluteca and parts 
of Tegucigalpa, Olancho, and Yoro in the latter state (as they were 
then denned); also the islands of Roatan and Guanaja. After 
eliminating the territories of the Jicaque and Paya the writer has 
outlined the Lencan territory to correspond as nearly as possible 
with the most recent data. As mapped it appears to conform, at 
least in a general way, with Sapper's determination, except that it 
adds a small extension into Nicaragua to include Squier' s Chondal, 
who, according to Brinton (3:149), are Lenca. It includes that 
part of San Salvador east of the Lempa river, the modern depart- 
ments of Paraiso, Tegucigalpa, La Paz, Intibuca, Comayagua, and 
parts of Santa Barbara and Gracias in Honduras, and extends into the 
southern part of Segovia in Nicaragua. 

Tlascalteca 

This is a dialect of the Nahuatlan family, closely allied to the 
Tlascalan ? which from a statement of Scherzer (456) appears to 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 75 

have been spoken by a small colony in Salvador about Izalco. It 
is probably merely a subdialect of or pure Pipil, as the latter is, or 
was, the language common to that section. It has not been noted 
on the accompanying map. 

Jicaque 

{Synonym: Xicaque) 

This language, which, so far as known at present, was that of an 
independent stock here named Jicaquean, is, or was, spoken by a 
tribe of Indians living in northern Honduras. According to Squier 
(4 : 378) their territory extended from the Rio Ulva on the west to the 
Rio Negro (or Black river, also called Rio Tinto) on the east, though 
on his map they are placed between the Ulva and Roman rivers. 
How far back into the interior their district stretched is not stated, 
but it is known that it did not include Comayagua. Although 
Membrefio (195) has a note on this tribe, he fails to indicate the 
locality further than by presenting the vocabularies of two dialects 
of the language — " Jicaque of Yoro" and " Jicaque of Palmar." He 
speaks of the latter as "cerca de San Pedro" (195); the other pre- 
sumably was spoken in the district of Yoro, as the vocabulary given 
appears to have been obtained by an official of that district. The 
difference between these two dialects as shown by the vocabularies 
is as great, if not greater, than that between the Maya proper and 
the Cakchikel. The area for this tribe marked on the accompanying 
map is determined according to the writer's best judgment from the 
brief data obtainable. 

Paya 

Like the preceding language, Paya forms a distinct stock which, 
following the rule established by Maj. J. AY. Powell, has been named 
the Payan. Squier says (4 : 378), " The Xicaques, greatly reduced, 
exist in the district lying between the Rio Ulua and Rio Tinto, 
and the Payas in the triangle between the Tinto, the sea, and the 
Rio Wanks, or Segovia." On his map, however, he extends them 
westward to the River Roman (or Aguan). Membrefio (195) states 
that the principal center of the Paya is the pueblo of Culmi, or Dulce 
Nombre, slightly south of the center of the area marked on the ac- 
companying map. This area and that of the Jicaque are supposed to 
represent the territory of these two tribes before the incoming of the 
Carib, now occupying the coast. Bell (258) says they inhabit the 
headwaters of the Black and Patook rivers. Squier expresses the 
opinion that the territory of the Lenca extended to the north coast, 
but it must be remembered that he included the Jicaque in the 
Lencan group. Whether the Choi territory extended eastward to the 
Rio Ulua is somewhat doubtful; Sapper does not place it so far. 



76 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



As no information in relation to the intervening strip is available, 
it is considered best to connect it with that of the Jicaque. 

Carib 

As the Carib of the gulf coast of Honduras were not established 
in this region until near the close of the eighteenth century, they 
may be omitted from extended consideration here, as they have been 
from the map. It is necessary to remark only that they are confined to 
the northern coast of Honduras. But one dialect has been noticed — 
the Moreno — a vocabulary of which is given by Membreno. He 
refers to the pueblo of Santafe de Punta-hicacos as inhabited by 
Morenos. Stoll locates a small colony about Livingstone, at the 
embouchure of the Rio Dulce, on the northeast coast of Guatemala. 

Matagalpa 

This is the chief if not the only language of a small stock named by 
Brinton (3 : 149) the Matagalpan. Squier applies the name Chondal 
(Chontal of Oviedo and Gomara) in part to the people speaking this 
language, but without mention of any distinction. Recognition of 
this distinction is due to Doctor Brinton (3 : 149), who obtained among 
the papers of Doctor Berendt a vocabulary of the language. The 
area occupied, having the city of Matagalpa as its central point, em- 
braced a large part of the Matagalpa district, and extended into the 
districts of Segovia and Chontales in Nicaragua. Sapper ( 1 : 29-30) 
says, " At present the Matagalpan language is spoken as an isolated 
dialect only in the Salvadorean villages Cacaopera and Lislique by 
some 3,000 persons." Whether this dialect differs in any respect 
from Matagalpa proper is not stated. The two villages mentioned 
are situated in the extreme northeastern corner of Salvador. As 
they are a considerable distance from Matagalpa, it is best, perhaps, 
to consider the language spoken in them as a subdialect of Matagalpa 
proper. 

Mangue 
(Synonym: Choluteca) 

Extending along the Pacific coast from the Bay of Fonseca in 
Honduras to the Gulf of Nicoya in Costa Rica, and living between 
the lakes and the ocean, were several small tribes belonging to 
different linguistic stocks: three — Mangue, Dirian, Orotinan — to the 
Chiapanecan; one — Niquiran — to the Nahuatlan; and another — 
Subtiaban — forming an independent family. 

Mangue, or Choluteca, as Squier designated it, a Chiapanecan dia- 
lect, was the most northwesterly tribe of the series, the area occupied 
extending, according to this writer (3 : n, 310), northward from the 



thomas] INDIAN- LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 77 

territory of the Subtiaba (Squier's Nagrandans) " along the Gulf of 
Fonseca into what is now Honduras." The distance it extended into 
the interior of this territory is not given, but it has been carried on 
the map in this direction to the southern boundary of the Lencan ter- 
ritory, though it must be admitted that the data on this point are 
exceedingly meager and unsatisfactory. In locating the tribes form- 
erly dwelling along the Pacific coast of Nicaragua we have the benefit 
of Doctor Berendt's statements in his address (2: 132-145), which 
agree very closely with Squier's conclusion, though neither indicates 
the extent into the interior, except where limited by the lakes. 
Gomara (1 : 264; 2 : 457) and Herrera mention a tribe (the Corobici) 
which seems to be identical with the Mangue (or Chorotega). The 
latter author says (n, dec. 3, 121), "Hablaban en Nicaragua cinco 
Lenguas diferentes, Coribici, que lo hablan mucho en Chuloteca," etc. 
Nevertheless, Peralta thinks the Coribici were the ancestors of the 
Guatuso (see below). It would seem that Mangue is a comprehen- 
sive term precisely equivalent to Chorotega, properly used, that is, 
to include the Chiapanecan element in this region — Choluteca, Dirian, 
and Orotinan. However, as Squier (3:311-312) has created con- 
fusion in the use of the terms Chorotegan and Cholutecan, it is best 
to follow Brinton in restoring the old term Mangue to supersede Cho- 
luteca. 

SUBTIABAN 

{Synonyms: Nagrandan, Maribi) 

This language, which forms a distinct family known by the same 
name, is the same as Squier's Nagrandan and Berendt's Maribi. 
The territory throughout which it was spoken is described by Squier 
(3 : 310) as " the Plain of Leon, or district between the northern extrem- 
ity of Lake Managua and the Pacific;" this probably included the 
greater portion of the district of Leon. As the same author states 
in another place, it was bounded on the northwest by the territory 
of the Choluteca or Mangue. This language, which, judging by 
Sapper's map (1) is not yet entirely extinct, though Sapper gives no 
vocabulary, is generally conceded by philologists to be not connected 
with any known family, and the vocabulary furnished by Squier (3) 
appears to justify this conclusion, notwithstanding a slight resem- 
blance to the Dorasque on the one hand and to the Matagalpan on 
the other. 

Dirian 

This language, which belongs to the Chiapanecan family, was 
spoken by the people who formerly occupied the territory between 
the upper extremity of Lake Nicaragua, the river Tipitapa, and the 
southern half of Lake Managua and the Pacific. Their principal 



78 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



towns were situated where now stand the cities of Granada, Masaya, 
and Managua, and the villages of Tipitapa, Diriomo, and Diriamba. 
(Squier, 3 : 310). They are supposed to be now extinct. The name 
Dirian signifies " people of the hills." 

NlQUIRAN 

This language, which belongs to the Nahuatlan family, and is 
closely related to Pipii and Aztec, was spoken by a colony proba- 
bly from the Pipil group of Salvador and Guatemala. The area 
occupied was the narrow strip between Lake Nicaragua and the 
Pacific Ocean, and the neighboring islands of the lake. The fact 
that these Indians belonged to the " Mexican" (Nahuatlan) stock 
was noticed by Oviedo, who applied to them the name Niquirans. 
Even the short vocabulary given by Squier makes the relation 
clear, showing that the people now under consideration pertained to 
the Aztec group and were closely related to the Pipil. 

Orotinan 

This third Chiapanecan dialect of the southern section was spoken 
throughout an area in northwestern Costa Rica extending from the 
southern shore of Lake Nicaragua southward to and along both 
shores of the Gulf of Nicoya for the greater part of its length, and 
westward to the Pacific Ocean. Squier (3:310) says merely, " occupy- 
ng the country around the Gulf of Nicoya, and to the southward of 
Lake Nicaragua." Brasseur de Bourbourg (1 : n, 110) says the 
Orotinas in the vicinity of the Gulf of Nicoya have as their principal 
villages Nicoya, Orotina, Cantren, and Chorote. Oviedo (iv, 108) 
also locates them about the Gulf of Nicoya. Peralta (1 : 720) gives 
the river Barranca as their southern limit on the east side of the gulf. 
Fernandez (1 : 548) gives the latitude of the city of Punta Arenas as 
their southern limit on the east coast, agreeing closely in this respect 
with Peralta's conclusion. 

The writer has no vocabulary of this particular colony, but from 
their discovery by the Spaniards in the sixteenth century history 
speaks of them as "Chorotegans," thus connecting them with the 
Mangue and Dirian tribes. Additional remarks on this tribe will be 
made in treating of the peoples of Costa Rica. 

Ulva 
{Synonym: Sumo) 

As the data at hand are too meager to justify an attempt to indi- 
cate on the map the limits of the tribal areas of the Ulvan family, 
now to be dealt with, it seems best to give only the boundaries of 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 79 

the area occupied by the entire family, indicating the tribal or sub- 
tribal names at such points therein as, from the best evidence acces- 
sible, appear to have been occupied by them respectively. The fact 
must be borne in mind, however, that the very existence of some of 
these tribes or subtribes is disputed. 

After comparing what is said by Squier and other authorities on 
the subject, Brinton, the principal authority here followed in the 
classification of the Ulvan tribes, gives (3: 162-163) the following 
with their respective habitats : 

Carchas, or Cukras, on the Rio Mico, above the Matlack Falls. 

Cocos, on the Rio Coco (Segovia). 

Melchoras, on the Rio de los Ramas (Bluefields). 

Micos, on the Rio Mico. 

Pantasmas, in the upper basin of the Rio Coco. 
Parrastahs, on the Rio Mico. 
Siquias, on the upper Rio Mico. 
Subironas, on the Rio Coco. 

Taocas, or Twakas, at San Bias, on the Rio Twaka. 

Ulvas (Woolwas or Smoos), on the headwaters of the Bluefields river. 

It must be added, however, that Brinton does not furnish his 
authority for some of these names and localities, and that Sapper 
(1 : 29) seems to doubt the correctness of his list and peoples the areas 
very largely with the Sumo. He says: 

The Sumos are mentioned by Brinton under the name Ulvas; aside from the Indians 
given as Bulbuls, Carchas, Cocos, Micos, Parrastahs, Pantasmas, Melchoras, Siquias, 
Smoos, Subironas, Twakas, and Woolwas, all however seem to belong to the Sumos. 

Squier and other authorities mention the Twaka, Cukra, and Ulva; 
and Reclus (283) names in addition the Pantasma, Melchora, Siquia, 
and Laman. The last-named author locates on his map most of the 
names he gives, but not consistently with his text. Bell (1 : 242- 
268) mentions the following tribes : The Smoos, "the most numerous 
tribe," on the headwaters of all the rivers from Bluefields to Patook 
[Patuca]; the Twaka, "a tribe of Smoos," along the Twaka river, a 
branch of the Prinz Awala; the Toongla, along the other branch of the 
same river — a mixed race of Smoos and Mosquito Indians ; the Cookra, 
around Bluefields. 

Young (80) says the principal residence of the Twaka at that time 
was about the head of the Patuca river. Squier (4) locates them, on 
his map, on the middle section of Segovia river, which forms in part 
the boundary line between Honduras and Nicaragua. Reclus (261) 
makes the tribe a member of the Lenca group and locates them on the 
upper affluents of the Patuca river. 

As before noted, Brinton locates the Cookra (Cukra, Carcha) on the 
Rio Mico above Matlack Falls. According to Squier's map, the Mico 
is the same as the Bluefields river, which has received also the name 
Escondido, and was by the Indians called Lama and Siguia, the latter 
name referring probably only to a tributary. Squier places the 



80 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 44 

Cukra in the interior, midway between the Bluefields and Segovia 
rivers. Reclus (283) locates them well up the Segovia river. This 
author, however, gives the Carca as a different tribe. 

As has been seen, Brinton places the Ulva (Ulua, Woolwa, Walwa, 
Smoos, Sumo) on the headwaters of the Bluefields river; Squier, on 
the middle course of the same river. Squier locates the Melchora 
immediately east of the southern end of Lake Nicaragua. The name 
Sumo (or Smoos) appears to be used rather indefinitely, but more 
generally as an equivalent of the stock name (Ulvan), the people 
embraced being considered as properly forming but one tribe, and the 
above-named supposed tribes as mere minor and local subdivisions. 
It is probable that the Ulvan dialects were related to Chibcha, but 
for the present it has been thought best to keep them distinct. 

Rama 

As stated by Brinton and Sapper, the Indians speaking this language 
are restricted at present to a small island in the Bluefields lagoon, and 
were confined to the same island at the time Bell lived in the Mos- 
quito territory (1846-1862) . There is evidence, however, that formerly 
they occupied a much larger area on the neighboring mainland, but 
whether this region lay along the Bluefields river or farther south it 
is impossible to decide with certainty from the meager data obtainable. 
Bell (259) says: 

The llamas inhabit a small island at the southern extremity of Blewfields lagoon. 
They are only a miserable remnant of a numerous tribe that formerly lived on the 
St. Johns and other rivers in that neighborhood. A great number of them still live at 
the head of the Rio Frio, which runs into the St. Johns river [Rio San Juan] at San 
Carlos fort. 

Those at the head of the Rio Frio, Costa Rica, are without doubt 
the Guatuso. 

Squier (4: 366) locates them between the Bluefields and San Juan 
rivers, indicating, as does Bell, a former more southerly habitat. 
This conclusion agrees with the indications furnished by the very 
brief vocabulary of the language which has been obtained, and which 
shows slight affinity with the Talamancan dialects, but a closer rela- 
tion with those of the Doraskean group of the Chibchan family. 
Following Brinton, the writer has associated it with the latter. 
Bell's supposition that the Rama are identical with the people living 
on the Rio Frio, Costa Rica — that is to say, with the Guatuso- — is, 
however, an error, as appears from comparison of the languages of the 
two peoples and from the great difference in their characteristics so 
far as known, although both belong to the Chibchan stock. 

Mosquito 

The mixed race designated by this name inhabits the Gulf coast of 
Honduras and Nicaragua from Cape Gracias southward to a point 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 81 

about midway between Bluefields and San Juan rivers, extending 
but a comparatively short distance toward the interior, except along 
the banks of some of the larger rivers. The statements of writers of 
some years ago in regard to the extent of country occupied by these 
Indians must be received with some reserve, being more or less 
warped by their relations with the contending governments. Even 
Squier must be included in this class. It is unnecessary to quote 
here the statements referred to. It may be stated, however, that 
Pittier (9), judging by the local names, is of the opinion that in the 
past people of this race occupied the coast of Costa Rica from San 
Juan river to Chiriqui lagoon. In the present paper Sapper is fol- 
lowed as to the area embraced in the Mosquito territory. 

The language is considered distinct. Lucien Adam, who has 
studied its grammatical construction, decides that it can not be 
brought into relation with either the Caribbean or the Chibchan 
stock. Notwithstanding this high authority, the writer is inclined 
to accept the traditional, or perhaps it may be said the semihis- 
torical, assertion that the primary element of the mixture was Carib. 
That the language contains Carib elements, whether borrowed or not, 
soon becomes evident on comparison. 

General Remarks on the Tribes of Costa Rica 

Continuing the investigation southward, Costa Rica next engages 
attention. On account of its bearing on the determination of the 
boundaries of the areas throughout which other dialects were spoken, 
it is necessary to. refer again to Orotina, 1 already noticed (see p. 78), 
in order to fix more definitely the eastern and southeastern boundary 
of the area throughout which it was spoken. As already stated 
(p. 78), Peralta appears to give the Barranca river, which enters the 
Gulf of Nicoya on the eastern side, near the city of Punta Arenas, as 
the southeastern boundary. Fernandez (1 : 548) asserts it was 
proven that Orotina was a generic speech applicable to all the Gulf 
region of Nicoya. He says also (1:35, note b), in commenting on 
the Relacion of Andres de Cereceda, who accompanied Gil Gonzales 
de Avila (about 1522) on his expedition northward along the western 
coast, that the Orotina occupied the coast (on the eastern side of the 
gulf) between the rivers Aranjuez and Chomes (Guasimal). These 
are two small rivers, but a few miles apart, which enter the gulf on 
the eastern side a short distance north of Rio Barranca. Fernandez 
thus locates their southern boundary substantially at the same point 
as that indicated by Peralta. 

The northern and western limits, however, are not so definitely 
given. 



Orotina: Sn. Urutina, Gurutina, Nicoya. The name Nicoya was seldom used as referring to the 
people or language, but was used interchangeably with Orotina as referring to the gulf, and sometimes 
to the surrounding regions occupied by the Orotina. 



82 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



Peralta (1: 720) says their seat was north of the Rio Barranca and 
southeast from the Rio Zapandi (or Tempisque), the river which 
flows south and enters the Gulf of Nicoya at its extreme northwestern 
point. But the statement of Fernandez given above includes the 
western peninsula, as does that of Brasseur de Bourbourg, mentioned 
in the first reference to the Orotina. Oviedo (m, 111) says, "The 
Indians of Nicoya and Orosi are of the language of the Chorotegas." 
This apparently includes the area now embraced in the district of 
Guanacaste, which includes the peninsula, and is probably what Squier 
based his conclusion on, the word " Chorotegas" being used here in a 
generic sense, and hence including the Orotina. Peralta says (1 : 806, 
note) that in Nicoya (the peninsula) the Orotinan language was spoken, 
as conjectured by Orozco y Berra, following Oviedo and Torque- 
mada. The data seem to justify, therefore, outlining the Orotinan 
area as on the accompanying map. 

It appears from a later paper by Peralta, however, that he includes 
as Orotinan territory the area now embraced in the district of Guana- 
caste as marked on the writer's map. This paper was prepared by 
Peralta as part of his report as commissioner of Costa Rica to the 
Columbian Historical Exposition at Madrid in 1892. Not having 
access to the original paper, the writer here quotes from the extract 
given by Doctor Brinton (5: 40-42) , one of the commissioners of the 
United States to that exposition. As Peralta' s paper bears on the 
ethnography of the entire territory of Costa Rica, the portion 
relating to the ethnographic distribution is quoted in full for the 
purpose of further reference: 

On the shores of the Pacific, in the peninsula of Nicoya, in all that territory which 
now constitutes the province of Guanacaste, and embracing all the vicinity of the 
gulf of Nicoya to the point of Herradura, lived the Chorotegas or Mangues, divided 
into various tribes or chieftancies, feudataries of the Cacique of Nicoya, to wit, Diria, 
Cangen, Zapanci, Pococi, Paro, Orotina, and Chorotega, properly so called, in the 
valley of the Rio Grande. By the side of these dwelt the immigrant Nahoas, who 
carried this far the arts and traditions of the Aztecs, and the cultivation of cacao, and 
obtained a supremacy over the previous inhabitants. The Chorotegas spoke the 
language of the same name, or the Mangue, a branch, if not the trunk and origin, of 
the Chiapanec. . . . The Nahuas, whose most important colonies controlled the 
isthmus of R-ivas between Lake Nicaragua and the Pacific, were established in Nicoya 
and spoke the Mexican or Nahuatl language. 

A Mexican colony also existed in the valley of Telorio (valley of the Duy, or of the 
Mexicans) near the Bay del Almirante, and inhabited the island of Tojar, or Zorobaro 
(now of Columbus), and the towns of Chicaua, Moyaua, Quequexque, and Corotapa, 
on the mainland, this being the farthest eastward in Costa Rica, or in Central America, 
to which the Nahuas reached, so far as existing evidence proves. 

Between the Lake of Nicaragua and the gulf of Nicoya, to the east of the volcano 
of Orosi and the river Tempisque, near longitude 85° west of Greenwich, dwelt the mys- 
terious nation of the Corobicies, or Corbesies, ancestors of the existing Guatusos. 
To the east of the same meridian were the Votos, occupying the southern shores of 
the Rio San Juan to the valley of the Sarapiqui. 



Thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 83 



To the east of the Sarapiqui, and from the mouths of the San Juan on the Atlantic 
to the mouth of the river Matina, was the important province of Suerre, belonging 
to the Guetars, who occupied the ground to Turrialba and Atirro, in the valleys of 
the Reventazon and the river Suerre or Pacuar. 

Between the river Natina and the river Tarire were the provinces of Pococi and of 
the Tariacas. To the east of the Tarire to the Bay del Almirante, dwelt the Viceitas, 
Cabecares, and Terrabas (Terrebes, Terbis, or Tiribies). 

On the Bay del Almirante to Point Sorobeta or Terbi there was the Chichimec 
colony, already referred to, whose cacique Iztolin conversed in the Mexican language 
with Juan Vasquez de Coronado in 1564. 

The Changuenes occupied the forests about the headwaters of the Rio Ravalo. 

The Doraces, south of the Laguna of Chiriqui, and at the foot of the Cordillera, 
adjoined in the valley of the river Cricamola or Guaymi with the warlike nation of 
the latter name. 

The Guaymies occupied the ccast and the interior lands situated between the rivers 
Guaymi and Conception, of Veragua. 

In front of the valley of the Guaymi lies the Island del Escodo, the governmental 
limit of Costa Rica; so that the Guaymis were distributed in nearly equal parts be- 
tween the jurisdiction of Costa Rica and of Veragua. 

In the interior, in the highlands about Cartago, on the slopes both of the Atlantic 
and the Pacific, were the provinces Guarco, Toyopan, and Aserri; farther west, toward 
the gulf of Nicoya, Pacaca, Garabito, and Chomes adjoined along the summits of 
La Herradura and Tilaran with the Chorotegas. 

These provinces formed the territory of the Huetares, or Guetares, uei tlalli, in 
Nahuatl, "great land," a general term, which included various tribes and chieftan- 
cies of the same linguistic stock, one entirely diverse from those of the neighboring 
Mangues and Nahuas, toward whom they were unfriendly, although maintaining 
commercial relations. 

The province of Guarco was considered by both the natives and the Spaniards as 
one of the most favored localities in the country, and for that reason was selected by 
the Guetares, and later by the whites, as the site of their principal town. It was here 
that the city of Costa Rica was founded in 1568. The name is a corruption of the 
Nahuatl Qualcan, from "qualli," good, convenient, with the locative suffix "can." 
Qualcan means, therefore, "good place, " or, as it is translated in Molina's Vocabulary, 
"a well-sheltered and desirable place, " which answers well to the valley of Cartago. 

Southeast of Chorotega and the heights of Herradura, and south of the Guetares, 
extending to the Pacific Ocean, between the rivers Pirris and Grande of Terraba, 
was the province of the Quepos, of which the Spanish Government formed the dis- 
trict of Quepo, whose extreme limit toward the southeast was the old Chiriqui River. 

According to the most probable conjectures, the Quepos belonged to the family 
of the Guetares and lived, by preference, on the coasts. They were also enemies of 
the Mangues and the Cotos and Borucas, and in consequence of their wars with them 
and with the whites, and with the burden of labors laid upon them by the latter, 
their towns disappeared in the middle of the eighteenth century without leaving any 
positive traces which will enlighten us upon their origin. 

Adjoining the Quepos, the Cotos or Coctos occupied the upper valley of the river 
Terraba, formerly known as the Coto. 

These formed a numerous and warlike tribe, skillful in both offense and defense. 

They are not known in Costa Rica by this name; but there is no doubt that the Bo- 
rucas are their descendants. These Borucas occupied the region about Golfo Dulce, 
formerly the gulf of Osa, east of the river Terraba, and gave their name Buricas, 
Burucas, or Bruncas to the province of Borica, discovered by the Licentiate Espinosa 
in the first voyage of exploration made by the Spaniards to this region in 1519, and 
also to Point Burica, the extreme southern limit of Costa Rica, in latitude 8° north. 



84 



BTJBEAU OF AMEKICAH ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



The province of Burica extended toward the east to the Llanos of Chiriqui, and 
formed a part of the government of Quepo. It belongs today to the district of Punta 
Arenas. 

The Terrabas, who have given their name to the river formerly called the Coto, do 
not belong to the tribes of the Pacific Slope. They were brought to the location there, 
which they now occupy, in Aldea or Terraba, partly by the persuasion of the mis- 
sionaries, partly by force, having been obliged to abandon the rough mountains to 
the north about the headwaters of the Tilorio or Rio de la Estrella, the Yurquin, and 
the Rovalo, about the year 1697. They have been variously called Terbis, Terrebes, 
Terrabas, and Tirribies, but there are no differences of dialect between them and 
their relatives to the north, other than would necessarily take place in any tongue 
from a separation of this length. 

At the time of the Conquest, therefore, the tribes occupying the territory of Costa 
Rica were Nahuas, Mangues, Guetares, Viceitas, Terrabas, Changuenes, Guaymies, 
Quepos, Cotos, and Borucas. 

... It is almost impossible to determine the ethnic affinities of the Guetares as 
long as no vocabularies of their tongue can be found, though such were certainly 
written by such able linguists as Fray Pedro de Betanzos, Fray Lorenzo de Bienve- 
nida, Fray Juan Babtista, and other Franciscans, who founded missionary establish- 
ments and -taught the natives around Cartago; but the testimony of archaeology 
proves that if they were not related to the Nahuas, they were subject to their influ- 
ence, perhaps through the active commerce they had with the Chorotegas and Nahuas 
about the gulf of Nicoya. 

. . . As to the Guaymies, Terrabas, Changuenes, and Borucas. their affinities to 
the tribes to the east of them are well marked, and it would not be surprising if they 
were also closely related to the natives between Paria and Darien, and even with the 
Chibchas of Colombia, as has been maintained by Brinton. 

GUATUSO 

The eastern and western boundaries of the Guatusan area on the 
map are based largely on inference, rather than on positive evidence. 
That the tribe occupied the valley of the Rio Frio to the San Juan 
river, and the region about the headwaters of the former, is the 
general consensus of the authorities. There is some evidence also 
that they frequently wandered down the San Carlos river, and Carl 
Sapper (1 : 31) speaks of a small body on a branch of the Sarapiqui. 
Gabb (483) states merely that at the time of his visit — 

They occupy a part of the broad plains north and east of the high volcanic chain of 
North-Western Costa Rica and south of the great lake of Nicaragua, especially about the 
headwaters of the Rio Frio. 

Fernandez (3:676) says: 

The lands occupied by the Guatusos are very extensive, level, fertile, and inter- 
sected by navigable rivers, with a slight incline from the right bank of the San Juan 
river to the Central Cordillera, which divides the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific. 

Bishop Thiel (2 : 12) says they live dispersed in the skirts of the 
Cerro Pelado, of the Tenorio, and on the banks of the affluents of the 
Rio Frio, principally between the Pataste, the Muerte, the Cucaracha, 
and the Venado. He appears to have succeeded in obtaining a 
vocabulary of their language, judging from that given in his Apuntes 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND C EN TEAL AMERICA 85 

Lexicograficos. As indicating the southern boundary may be cited 
the statement by Gabb (484) that the town of San Ramon is "not far 
from the borders of the Guatuso country." Attention is directed 
likewise to what is said of this tribe by Peralta in the extract from 
his paper given above. 

As will be seen by reference to the List of Families and Tribes on 
the map, the writer has followed the philologists in placing the 
Guatusan dialect in the Chibchan family. This relation appears to 
be borne out by the vocabularies, though not to a very marked 
extent. 

Guetare 

{Synonym: Huetare) 

Doctor Brinton (3 : 146) at first associated this idiom with theChiapa- 
necan linguistic stock, but afterward (4: 498) decided from material 
which had come into his possession that it pertained to the Talaman- 
can linguistic group. While it is very probable that Doctor Brinton 
is correct in his later conclusion, which is here followed, the evidence 
he presents is not entirely satisfactory. This consists in the com- 
parison of very brief vocabularies, as follows: 





Guetare Other Talamancan 


man 


pejelilli 


pejettille=viT. 


woman 


palacrak 


palacrak 


sun 


cagune 


cagune 


moon 


furia 


tura 


fire 


yoco 


yoco 


water 


dicre 


dicre 


head 


sotacii 


sotacu 


eye 


seguebra 


seguebra, or wobra 


ear 


secuque 


zgo-ku 


mouth 


sequeque 


ko-kwu 


nose 


seyiquete 


jik 


tongue 


seguecte 1 < 


kok-tu 


tooth 


saka 


ka 


hand 


seyura 


ura 


foot 


ecuru 


kru-kwe 


house 


tu 


hu 



The agreement between the two idioms, as shown by these brief 
lists, is so close that they may be considered as one and the same 
language. In other words, the evidence proves too much in view of 
the fact that the Guetare vocabulary, which was obtained by Doctor 
Berendt, was marked by him " Ancient Talamanca," and not 
Guetare. Moreover, this was obtained about forty-four years ago 
from some natives residing near San Jose de Costa Rica, but not a 
word, it seems, was said in regard to their relation to the Guetare 
tribe. Doctor Brinton adds, "It is called Talamanca, but Mr. Gabb, 



i From Gabb. 



86 



BUKEAU OF AMEEICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



who saw it, pronounced it to be of a different dialect." The real 
evidence, therefore, is limited to the fact that the vocabulary was 
obtained from Indians living in the region formerly embraced in the 
Guetare territory. It is deemed safest, however, to include the 
idiom for the present in the Talamancan group. 

Although it is difficult at this late day to mark the boundaries of 
the Guetare territory as they existed at the time of the Spanish con- 
quest, the area in a general sense is readily determined from historical 
and other data. 

O vie do (lib. 29, cap. 21) says — 

Los Giietares son mucha gente, e viven encima de las sierras del puerto de La Herra- 
dura, e se extienden por la costa deste golpho [Nicoya] al Poniente de la banda del 
Norte hasta el confin de los Chorotegas. 

According to this statement, the territory of the tribe reached the 
Pacific coast and extended along it toward the northwest to Punta 
Arenas or Rio Barranca, the limit, as stated above, of the southern 
extension of the Orotina, or " Chorotegas " as Oviedo terms them. As 
the tribe extended back into the sierras behind Herradura bay, their 
territory must have embraced the Sierras de Turrubales, as stated 
by Fernandez (1: 34, note/). 

Peralta (1: 768-769) mentions several provinces which, he says, 
were peopled by the Indians of this tribe, as follows : 

Garabito, Catapa, Tice, and Boto (Voto), comprehending the territory south of 
Lake Nicaragua and San Juan river to its confluence with the Rio Sarapiqui (south) 
to the mountains of Barba. Including the valley of Coyoche between the rivers 
Barranca and Grande; Abra (or Curriravo, Curridabat) and Tayopan; Accerri and 
Pacaca. Guarco, between the rivers Taras and Toyogres. Turriarba (or Turrialba) 
and Cooc (or Cot). The aborigines of these provinces were Guetares. 

This includes the Boto, or Voto, Indians in the Guetare group, who, 
Peralta says (1: 401), were situated on the right margin of the Desa- 
guadero (San Juan) between the Frio, Pocosol, and Sarapiqui rivers. 
Adding the province of Suerre, as he does in the extract given above, 
would make the San Juan river from its mouth up to the Rio Frio the 
northern boundary of the Guetare territory. As the mountains of 
Barba are in the district of Heredia and those of Turrialba are along 
the northern boundary of the district of Cart ago, this description 
applies to a wide strip extending from the San Juan river on the 
north and the Caribbean sea on the northeast, to the Pacific ocean 
on the south, the coast line on the south reaching from Barranca 
river at the northwest probably to, or nearly to, the Rio Grande de 
Terraba on the southeast. 

Fernandez (1:587), quoting from Licenciado Cavallon, seems to 
include the district of Cartago in the Guetare territory. In regard 
to the seat of the Voto tribe or subtribe, he says (1 : 64, note e) : 

Boto or Voto includes the Indians who occupied the southern cordillera of Costa 
Rica from the river of Barva up to the Rio de Orosl, called Sierra de Tilaran. The 
name is preserved in that of the Volcano de los Votos or de Puas. 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND C EN TEAL AMERICA 87 

The Sierra de Tilaran, as marked on the map of Costa Rica, extends 
along the extreme northwestern border of the district of Alajuela, 
while the volcano of Puas (or Poas) is on the extreme eastern border, 
where it joins the district of Heredia. That the Sierra de Tilaran 
formed the extreme southern boundary of the Guatusan territory is 
certain. In fact, one portion of it is named the Cerro de los 
Guatusos. It seems, therefore, that the range to which Fernandez 
refers is that which extends east and west across Heredia and the 
southeastern portion of Alajuela; but what stream is referred to by 
the name "Barva" is uncertain (possibly it should be u Brava," 
though tins does not solve the difficulty with the limited data at 
hand) . 

The statement made by Peralta in the excerpt from his pen on 
page 83 agrees with his conclusion, as stated above. The assertion 
that ' 1 to the east of the Sarapiqui, and from the mouths of the San 
Juan on the Atlantic to the mouth of the river Matina, was the 
important province of Suerre, belonging to the Guetars," is open to 
question, however, as there is no means of comparing the languages. 
Nevertheless, the writer has followed Peralta in the accompanying 
map. 

Voto 
{Synonym: Boto) 

According to all the evidence remaining on record, this tribe occu- 
pied the country south of the Rio San Juan from the river San Carlos 
to the Sarapiqui, their territory extending southward to, and proba- 
bly across, the district of Heredia and the southern part of Alajuela. 

The writer has failed to find the data on which Peralta and 
others base the conclusion that the people of this tribe were con- 
nected with the Guetare. Carl Sapper (1: 31) speaks of them as a 
distinct tribe, although not alluding to their ethnic relations. As no 
vocabulary, not even a few words of their language, has been pre- 
served, so far as known, its affinities can be only guessed at or inferred 
from other data. Is it not possible that they were the Rama, part of 
whom Bell mistook for the Guatuso . (See p . 80 . ) If his statement was 
based on some tradition, the supposition may not be wholly gratui- 
tous; otherwise it is. On the whole it is considered best for the pres- 
ent to follow here the Costa Rican authorities, who are on the ground 
and familiar with the history of their country so far as recorded; 
hence the Voto are assigned to the Guetare territory, although not 
referred to on the map. 

Suerre (?) 

It is doubtful whether the territory included under this name 
should be considered a separate linguistic area. In the extract 



88 



BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



given above (p. 83) from Peralta' s paper on the ethnography of 
Costa Rica, and in his work heretofore cited (1: 769, note 1), he 
says : 

To the east of the Sarapiqui, and from the mouths of the San Juan on the Atlantic 
to the mouth of the river Matina, was the important province of Suerre, belonging 
to the Guetars, who occupied the ground to Turrialba and Atirro, in the valleys of 
the Reventazon and the river Suerre or Pacuar. 

The chief evidence of the relation of the people of this province 
to the Guetare is found in the letter of Juan Vasquez de Coronado 
(December 11, 1562, given by Peralta, 1: 760-765) where, referring 
to the expedition of Cavallon and the submission of the provinces of 
the Guetare, he mentions the provinces of Suerre and Turucaca, the 
former on the Sea of the North and the latter on the Sea of the 
South (764). 

The name is not referred to on the accompanying map. 

Quepo (?) 

The same uncertainty as to linguistic distinction exists in regard 
to the people occupying the section known under this name as in the 
case of the Suerre. 

Peralta (1: 769, note 2) says Quepo was "a province south of the 
Cordillera de la Candelaria, upon the Pacific Ocean, at 9° 30' north 
latitude." In the extract from his paper, given above, he locates 
them southeast of Chorotega and the heights of Herradura, and 
south of the Guetare, extending to the Pacific ocean between the 
rivers Pirris and Grande of Terr aba. He adds further that, accord- 
ing to the most probable conjectures, the Quepo belonged to the 
family of the Guetare, and that they were the enemies of the Coto 
and the Boruca. 

These statements, when closely compared with those of the same 
author in what precedes, show some confusion; moreover, for rea- 
sons which will appear further on, the writer is not prepared to 
accept the statement that the Guetare (the Quepo being included) 
extended southeast to the Rio Grande de la Terraba, as the valley 
of this river, in part at least, was occupied by the Terraba and the 
Boruca. It is not indicated on the map. 

Talamanca 

It has been found most convenient for present purposes, and not 
inconsistent with correct classification, to retain the name Tala- 
manca for that group of closely allied dialects spoken by certain 
tribes of Indians inhabiting both sides of the cordillera in eastern 
and southeastern Costa Rica. These dialects, which belong to the 
Chibchan family, are known by the following names : Boruca, Bribri, 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND C EN TEAL AMERICA 89 

Cabecar, Estrella, Terraba, Tirribi, and Tucurric; some others are 
mentioned which, are now extinct. This course has been adopted 
for present purposes, for the reason that, while it is possible to out- 
line with approximate correctness the territory of the group, the data 
do not justify the attempt to mark the areas of the separate dialects. 

It is necessary to state here that on the present map the south- 
eastern boundary of Costa Rica, that between this republic and 
Panama, is not as given on most maps, but as defined by the Presi- 
dent of France, who was appointed arbiter by the two republics of 
the dispute concerning this boundary. By this decision a consider- 
able strip of southeastern Costa Rica was awarded to Colombia. As 
will be seen, part of the Talamancan territory falls within this strip. 
It should be stated further that Talamanca is here used as a generic 
term for the group and not given to any one dialect. The name has 
been very loosely applied; for instance Fernandez (1: 617) says the 
"naciones" of the Talamanca are Cabecar, Viceite, Terraba, Toxare, 
Changuene, Zegua, Torasque, and Guaymie, thus including tribes of 
two different stocks— Chibchan and Nahuatlan (Zegua) . It is some- 
what strange that a citizen of the country should have made this 
mistake in 1889, especially as Dr. Max Uhle in 1888 (470) gave 
correctly, so far as his reference extends, the Bribri, Cabecar, Estrella, 
Tiribi, and Tucurrique. Moreover, B. A. Thiel in his Apuntos Lexi- 
cograficos de las Lenguas, to which Fernandez refers, gives as the 
dialects of the Talamanca or Viceite, Bribri, Cabecar, Estrella, and 
Chirripo. He mentions Boruca and Terraba separately. Chirripo is 
considered by some authorities merely a subdialect of Cabecar; by 
others, Tariaca under another name, spoken by the people of a 
particular village called Chirripo and the immediately surrounding 
region. Sapper (1: 31) says: 

The language of Tucurrique or Tucurriqui, a village situated on the banks of the 
Rio Reventazon differs only in a few non-essential dialectic details from the language 
of the Indians living on the banks of the Rio Chirripo, Rio Estrella, Coen and the upper 
Teliri, which Pittier names Cabecara after their chief dwelling place, S. Jose Cabecar. 

An examination of the vocabularies given by Thiel tends to confirm 
this conclusion. Pittier and Gagini (7) consider three of these dia- 
lects the principal ones — Bribri, to which are referred Cabecar, Chir- 
ripo, Estrella and Tucurric; Terraba, which is considered identical 
with Tirribi; and Boruca, which forms the third division. 

According to Peralta's paper quoted above (p. 83), the south- 
eastern boundary of the Guetare territory, where it joined the Tala- 
mancan area, extended from the mouth of the Rio Matina westward 
to Terrialba on the north line of Cartago district. In his map (Mit- 
teilungen, 1901) Sapper locates a small colony of Cabecar in the 
northern part of this district, on the extreme headwaters of the Re- 
ventazon river. From this it appears that the northern boundary 
8347°— Bull. 44—11 7 



90 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



of the Talamancan area ran slightly south of west from the mouth 
of the Rio Matina, nearly or quite to the middle of the northern boun- 
dary of Cartago district, where it turned south. 

Notwithstanding the statement by Peralta given above, that the 
Guetare territory (including that of the Quepo) extended southeast 
to the Rio Grande Terraba, it is shown by Sapper's map that the 
Terraba and the Brunca (or Boruca) tribes are located, even at the 
present day, in the valley of this river, chiefly on the west side. The 
name of the river (Terraba) is also significant. It has been decided 
best, therefore, to include this river, or at least all except its head- 
waters, in the Talamancan territory. The Pacific ocean forms the 
southern boundary. It is apparent from Sapper's map that the 
eastern limit on the Pacific side can be but slightly east, if east at all, 
of Punta Boruca, as immediately to the east of it are encountered 
the Doraskean element. In the extract given Peralta evidently 
includes the Boruca peninsula in Doraskean territory. The eastern 
boundary of the Talamancan territory on the Pacific slope falls 
between the Boruca peninsula and the Rio Chiriqui Viejo. 

The eastern boundary of the Talamancan territory, on the Atlantic 
slope, can not be exactly determined. That this territory did not 
include the Rio Rovalo, which falls into the western side of Chiriqui 
lagoon, seems certain; and that the Doraskean territory included 
some of the upper tributaries of the Telorio also seems certain. 
Pinart (2:1) says the Doraskean tribes were situated back of the 
Chiriqui lagoon, and from the name is inclined to believe their ter- 
ritory formerly extended north to the Changuinaula river, Changuina 
being a name sometimes applied to them. This condition of things, if 
correctly stated, must have prevailed, however, before the incoming 
of the Mexican colony. The line represented on the accompanying 
map does not extend quite so far north. 

Tariaca(f).- — Starting with that part of the territory belonging to 
the Atlantic slope and going south, the first tribe of which there is any 
notice is the Tariaca. This tribe is considered by Pittier (41) identical 
with the Chirripo of Thiel. The region occupied seems to have 
extended along the coast from the Rio Matina well down toward the 
Rio Teliri. Unless they were identical with the Chirripo the tribe is 
extinct and nothing is known of their language; but accepting Pit- 
tier's suggestion of identity with the Chirripo, as the writer is 
inclined to do, there is evidence in Thiel's vocabulary (1) that they 
belonged to the Talamancan group. Although Sapper (1 : 32) appears 
to draw his information regarding the Tariaca from Pittier, he evi-' 
dently distinguishes them from the Chirripo, as he says: 

North of the district of the Chirripo and Bribri Indians along the Atlantic coast are to 
be found the former dwelling places of the Tariaca (taken from Pittier) of which tribe 
nothing has been preserved to the present time. 



thomas] INDIAN" LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 91 

It is probable that a remnant fleeing from Spanish attacks found refuge 
in the sierras, where from a local name they became known as Chirripo. 

Cabecar. — Although in the statement quoted above Sapper implies 
that the Tariacan territory lay immediately north of and adjoining 
that of the Bribri Indians, in his map he places the Cabecar between 
the two tribes; that is to say, he locates them north of the Bribri 
territory. His map appears to be correct, as Gabb (487) says, "The 
Cabecars occupy the country from the frontiers of civilization to the 
western [left] side of the Coen branch of the Tiliri or Sicsola river." 
Pittier says merely that they occupy the valleys of the upper Coen, 
the middle branch of the Teliri (Teriri, or Sicsola). 

Bribri. — According to Gabb (487) the Bribri occupied the region 
watered by the eastern branches of the Teliri, and also that about the 
mouths of this river; in other words, the region between the Coen on 
the west and the Changuinaula on the east. 

Tirribi. — According to Gabb (487) and other authorities the Indians 
speaking this dialect occupied the region watered by the Rio Tilorio 
or upper Changuinaula. 

Tucurric (Cuqueri). — Judging by the statements of Thiel (1:174), 
the early documents quoted by Fernandez (1:371, 610), and Gabb 
(486), the Indians speaking this dialect were located in the central 
part of what is now known as the Cartago district, on the headwaters 
of the Revantazon river. 

Estrella. — Thiel gives a vocabulary of this idiom in his "Apuntes," 
but unfortunately omits to state where it was obtained. It is under- 
stood that the Indians speaking it lived in the valley of Estrella river, 
a stream entering the sea a short distance south of Limon, in the terri- 
tory assigned to the Tariaca (or Chirripo). These appear to be the 
people spoken of by Gabb (492), who says: 

On the North or Estrella river, and on the Chiripo, there are a few more Cabecars 
who have little communication with the headquarters of the tribe, but who are in the 
habit of going out to Limon or Matina for what little trade they require. 

As indicated by ThieFs vocabulary, the language is substantially 
identical with the Chirripo; in fact, no good reason appears for retain- 
ing the name as that of a different dialect. 

Boruca (or Brunca). — Passing over the dividing range to the Pacific 
slope, we reach the territory where the other dialects of the Talaman- 
can linguistic group were spoken. The chief one of these was Boruca, 
or Brunca. According to Sapper's map, those who still speak the 
language live in close relation with the Terraba, in the middle and 
lower parts of the valley of the Rio Grande de Terraba. Judging by 
local names and other data, it is probable that the territory of the 
Boruca in their palmy days extended eastward to and included the 
peninsula of Burica. 

Terraba. — Terraba is at most merely a subdialect of the Tirribi and 
probably should not be considered as distinct therefrom. Gabb (487) 



92 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



says "the Terrabas are tribally identical with the Tiribis." A tradi- 
tion, which seems well authenticated, says that in the sixteenth 
century, through the influence of the Franciscan friars, a portion of 
the Tirribi was persuaded to break away and pass over to the Pacific 
slope. (Sapper and Gabb.) 

Coto. — So far as known, no vocabulary of this dialect has been pre- 
served; in fact, it is not positively known that there was such a 
dialect. As there is positive evidence, however, that there was a 
tribe known by this name which cannot be identified with any of 
those mentioned, one is justified in using the name as that of a dis- 
tinct dialect or language. In the paper heretofore quoted (p. 83) 
Peralta says they occupied the upper valley of the Rio Terraba, for- 
merly known as Coto river. He thinks there can be no doubt that 
the Boruca are their descendants. 

This completes the list of the Talamancan dialects, none of which 
have been located on the map, but before passing to another group 
the following from Pittier's ''Nombres Geograflcos" is given in regard 
to the Bribri tribe, as throwing light on the tribal distinctions of 
the group. 

The tribe was divided into two groups — the Tubor-uak, and the 
Kork-uak, or Djbar-uak. Marriage between persons of the same 
group or division was forbidden. Children belonged to the mother's 
clan. The clans or subdivisions of the groups were as follows : 



suritz-uak 


deer clan 


dutz-uah 


bird clan 


bokir-uak 




dojk-uak 




sarh-uah 


monkey clan 


dogdi-uak 


(river name) 


orori-uak 


falls of the Arari river clan 


kugdi-uak 


falls of the Uren river clan 


tkiut-uak 


house-site clan 


duri-uak 


broken clan 


arau-uak 


ara, thunderclap; u, house 


urij-uak 


ant-eating bear. 


djbar-uak 




diu-uak 




etc. (to 15 in 


number) 



Gabb (487) states that there is no authority for the use of the name 
Beceita, or Veceita, frequently applied as a tribal name, and that it 
is unknown to the Indians of Costa Pica. 

Sigua 

(Synonyms: Xicagua, Chicagua, Chichagua, Segua, Shelaba (Gabb, 
487), Mexicanos (Fernandez, 1: 107) 

That there was a Mexican or Nahuatlan colony on the northern 
coast of Costa Rica in the neighborhood of Chiriqui lagoon has been 

1 Uak signifies "pueblo" or "clan." 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 93 

lately denied, but it is too clearly proven by historical evidence to 
admit of doubt. In the paper heretofore quoted Peralta says: 

On the Bay del Almirante [Chiriqui] to Point Sorobeta or Terbi there was the 
Chichimec colony, already referred to, whose cacique Iztolin conversed in the Mexi- 
can language with Juan Vasquez de Coronado in 1564. 

A previous statement in the same paper is as follows : 
A Mexican colony also existed in the valley of Telorio near the Bay del Almirante, 
and inhabited the island of Tojar, or Zorobaro (now of Columbus), and the towns of 
Chicaua, Moyaua, Quequexque, and Corotapa, on the mainland. 

The foregoing information enables us to locate on the map with 
approximate correctness the territory of this Nahuatlan colony, 
which marks the southern limit of this conquering race. 

DORASKEAN TRIBES 1 

According to all the authorities, the eastern boundary of the Tala- 
mancan area forms the western boundary of the Doraskean area. 
This area was in the form of a belt extending across this narrow 
part of the continent from the Chiriqui lagoon to the Pacific Ocean. 
In the extract from his paper heretofore given (p. 83) Peralta states 
that the "Changuenes," who belonged to this group — 

Occupied the forests about the headwaters of the Rio B-avalo. The Doraces, south 
of the Laguna of Chiriqui, and at the foot of the Cordillera adjoined in the valley of 
the river Cricamola or Guaymi with the warlike nation of the latter name. 

Pinart (2:1) says the u Dorasque-Changuina' ; occupied the region 
about the volcano of Chiriqui, or Enena, and the high sierras of 
Chiriqui and Talamanca, and w that they adjoined the "naciones"' of 
the Talamanca, extending northward to the Chiriqui lagoon. Sapper 
(l:map) shows them in the south near David bay and also in the 
sierras midway between that bay and Chiriqui lagoon. Except in 
the case of the two groups placed on his map, one of which at 
least he seems to have visited, the latter author relies chiefly on 
Pinart' s statement. In addition to the statement above referred 
to, Pinart speaks of settlements at Bugava, which is near the Pacific 
coast at the Bay of David, and at Gualaca, which is in the inte- 
rior about midway 'toward Chiriqui lagoon, around which Sapper 
locates his interior settlement. He mentions another group on the 
headwaters of the Changuinaula ; others are mentioned at Calderas 
and Potrero, all of which, except those on the Changuinaula, he 
visited. He indicates that the former chief habitat of the ' ' Dorasque- 
Changuina" was on the Atlantic slope, but that they were transferred 
by the missionaries in the eighteenth century to the Pacific slope. 

Glialiva. — All ascertained in regard to this dialect is that it was 
spoken, or perhaps more correctly supposed to be or to have been 



1 On account of the comparatively small size of the map of the region now entered in the progress south- 
ward and the lack of data adequate for marking correctly the tribal areas, only the territory occupied 
by the group or subfamily is outlined. 



94 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



spoken, by Indians living in the sierras about the headwaters of the 
Changuinaula. If the supposition that they speak a Doraskean dia- 
lect be correct, the fact tends to confirm Pinart' s suggestion that 
the Changuina formerly occupied the valley of the Changuinaula, 
the river receiving its name, as Pit tier (9) also says, from the 
Indians. The latter author, however, asserts that it is a Mosquito 
name. 

Changuina. — All that is known in regard to the Indians speaking 
this dialect is that Pinart obtained his vocabulary from some three 
or four Changuina Indians living at Bugava on the Pacific side. 
Gabb (487) says it was reported to him that a part of the tribe still 
lived on the headwaters of the Changuinaula, but that " their very 
existence is known only by vague reports of their savage neighbors." 
It is possible that these were not Changuina but Talamanca Indians, 
otherwise they must be identified with the Chaliva. 

CJiumula. — Nothing is known in regard to this dialect except that 
information respecting it was obtained by Pinart from Indians living 
at Caldera and Potrero in the interior. 

Dorask (proper). — The last Indian of this tribe died in 1882 
(Pinart 2:2). The vocabulary given by this author was taken from 
a manuscript of Padre Bias Jose Franco, obtained at Gualaca in the 
interior. Dorask (or Doracho, as sometimes written) does not appear 
to be a name mentioned by the early authors; at least Bancroft, 
who certainly made a careful examination of their writings (be our 
opinion of his conclusions what it may), says (in, 794), "TheTules, 
Dariens, Cholos, Dorachos, Savanerics, Cunas, and Bayamos are new 
names not mentioned by any of the older writers." What particular 
section the Dorask proper originally occupied is therefore unknown. 

Gualaca. — Knowledge of this dialect rests on precisely the same 
evidence as that regarding the Dorask proper, namely, the vocabu- 
lary of Padre Bias Jose Franco as given by Pinart (2). It was 
obtained at the same place — Gualaca in the interior, where Sapper 
locates his interior group. 

Teluskie(?) — This is given by Brinton (3 : 175) as one of the dia- 
lects of his Changuina stock — here the Doraskean group. He gives 
as the locality, "near Rio Puan," a branch of Rio Telorio. The 
writer has been unable to find the authority on which this habitat 
is given, though he has access to all the works to which Bancroft 
refers in this connection. Pinart (5:118) merely mentions the name 
without particulars, nor is any vocabulary available. Possibly 
Teluskie is only another name for Chaliva. 

Guaymie 

This name is here used as employed by Pinart and Adam, that is, 
rather as designating a group, or subfamily, including several dialects, 
than as the name of a language. According to Pinart (3:2) there 



thomas] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTKAL AMERICA 95 

were three principal dialects: The Move-Valiente, called also the 
Norteno by the Spaniards; the Murire-Bukueta, called also the 
Sabanero by the Spaniards ; and the Muoi. Lucien Adam, however, 
counts six dialects, which he arranges in two groups, thus: 1, Muoi, 
Murire, and Sabanero; 2, Valiente, Guaymie, and Norteno. , 

The latter arrangement appears to be the correct one and that 
which Pinart has in reality followed in his vocabularies, notwith- 
standing his preliminary statement. 

According to Pinart (3: preface), the group occupied at the time 
of the Conquest that part of the Panama district extending on the 
north from Chiriqui lagoon to Chagres river, and on the south, or 
Pacific side, from Chorrera to the Rio Fonseca; the Pearl and other 
islands of the Gulf of Panama, and Cebaco, Coiba, Jicaron, and other 
islands in the vicinity of Chiriqui lagoon. Peralta says in the paper 
heretofore quoted (p. 83) that "the Guaymies occupied the coast 
and the interior lands situated between the rivers Guaymi and 
Conception, of Veragua." According to Pinart (3:2) these dialects 
appear to be spoken at present only in the plains and sierras in 
the vicinity of the eastern end of Chiriqui lagoon, in the Valley 
Miranda (or Guaymie), and "en las sierras del mineral de Veraguas." 
He gives, however, at the end of his part 2, a list of the names of 
places, rivers, etc. — 

Pertaining to the dialects of the Guaymie language, in the departments of Panama, 
Colon, Cocle, Veraguas, Los Santos and Chiriqui, and also in the comarcas of Balboa 
and Bocas-del-Toro. 

The above territory extends to the Chagres river. 

Sapper (1) very wisely has attempted to indicate on his map only 
the area of the Guaymie in the group sense. Even this is not 
marked on the present map, being included in the Doraskean area. 

The linguistic material collected by Pinart has enabled philologists 
to assign these dialects to the Chibchan family with reasonable cer- 
tainty. Adam is here followed in counting six dialects, and Pinart 
in fact gives six in his vocabularies. 

Cuna 

This language, which shows no clear affinity with any other lan- 
guage, in spite of certain leanings toward Chibchan, constitutes 
a stock in itself, to which the name Cunan is applied. Pinart was 
inclined to connect it with the Caribbean group, but this sugges- 
tion has not been accepted by philologists generally. The Cuna 
have been mentioned under various names, as Mandinga, Darien Indi- 
ans, Chucunaque, Cunacuna, Bayano, Tule, Yule, San Bias Indians, 
etc., and the old Spanish name Cueva also refers to them. 

According to Pinart (1 : preface) the boundaries of the Cunan 
territory at the time of the Conquest were as follows : On the west a 



96 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[bull. 44 



line running from the Rio Chagres on the north coast to Chorrera 
on the Pacific coast; on the east and south it was separated from the* 
Choco territory by the Rio Cacarica, the " sierra del Espiritu Santo/' 
and the Rio Sambu. As the lines run from coast to coast, the region 
is easily indicated. 

With Cuna end the languages of isthmian America on the south, the 
next language (Choco) being included geographically in the conti- 
nent of South America. 

ETHNIC DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN NORTH AMERICA AND 

SOUTH AMERICA 

It has long been conceded that the linguistic element (if it may be 
termed so) of South America, at the time of the Spanish Conquest, 
extended into the southern sections of Central America. Brinton says 
(3 : 164): 

The mountain chain which separates Nicaragua from Costa Rica, and the headwaters 
of the Rio Frio from those of the more southern and eastern streams, is the ethnographic 
boundary of North America. Beyond it [going south] we come upon tribes whose 
linguistic affinities point towards the southern continent. Such are the Talamancas, 
Guaymies, Yalientes, and others. 

So far as the present writer is aware, however, Sapper (1:48) is the 
first to lay down definitely this dividing line on a map. Beginning 
at the extreme northwestern corner of Honduras, where it meets the 
bay, it runs thence southeast almost in a direct line to the eastern 
end of Lake Nicaragua; and thence in nearly the same direction to 
the head of the Gulf of Dulce on the southern coast of Costa 
Rica. This demarcation, allowing the following modification, is 
accepted: Carry the line from the east end, or near the east end, 
of Lake Nicaragua almost directly south to the mouth of the Gulf of 
Nicoya, the tribes east of this line — the Jicaque, Pay a, the Ulvan 
tribes, Carib, Mosquito, Rama, and all the tribes of Costa. Rica 
(except the Orotina), and those of Panama— being considered as 
belonging ethnically to the southern continent. Brinton's dividing 
line was laid down before he had discovered the correct relation of the 
Rama. He assigned the Jicaque, Paya, and Ulvan group to the 
northern continent, but, in the judgment of the writer, Sapper's 
division is the better one. On this point the only question in doubt 
is, whether or not the Xincan, Lencan, Matagalpan, and Subtiaban 
tribes, west of the dividing line thus drawn, should not also be added 
to the South American lis to 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Ahumada, Luis de. Carta del Padre 
Luis de Ahumada, dirigida al Padre 
Martin Pelaez, Provincial de la Com- 
pania de Jesus el 13 de Noviembre de 
1608. In Doc. Hist. Alex., 4th ser., 
vol. in. Mexico, 1857. 

Albornoz, Juan de. Arte de la Lengua 
Chiapaneca [with] Doctrina Christiana 
by Luis Barrientos; Observations pre- 
liminaires by Alph. Pinart. Paris, 
1875. 

Alcedo, Antonio de. Diccionario Geo- 
graphico-Historico. Vols. i-v. Madrid, 
1786-1789. 

Alegre, Francisco Javier. Historia 
de la Compahia de Jesus en Nueva Es- 
pafia. Vols. i-m. Mexico, 1841^2. 

Alejandre, Marcelo. Cartillo Huas- 
teca con su Gramatica, Diccionario, y 
varias Reglas para aprender el Idioma. 
Mexico, 1890. 

Anales del Museo Michoacano. Morelia, 
1887 et seq. 

Anonymous. Vocabulario Castellano- 
Zapoteco (published by La Junta Co- 
lombina de Mexico). Mexico, 1893. 

Arlegui, Joseph de. Cronica de la 
Provincia de N. S. P. S. Francisco de 
Zacatecas. Mexico, 1737. 

Baegert, Jacob. An account of the ab- 
original inhabitants of the California 
Peninsula, as given by Jacob Baegert. 
Translated and arranged by Charles 
Rau. In Smithsonian Rep. 1863, 
Washington, 1864; ibid., 1864, Wash- 
ington, 1865. 

Balbi, Adrien. Atlas ethnographique 
du Globe, ou Classification des Peuples 
anciens et modernes d'apres leurs 
Langues. Paris, 1826. 

Bancroft, Hubert Howe. The Native 
Races of the Pacific States. Vols. i-v. 
San Francisco, 1875-76. 

Bell, Charles N. Remarks on the 
Mosquito Territory. In Jour. Roy. 
Geogr. Soc, vol. xxxn. London, 
1862. 



Belmar, Francisco. (1) Ensayo sobre 
la Langua Trike. (No author's name 
on title-page.) Small pamphlet. 
Oaxaca, 1897. 

(2) Ligero Estudio sobre la Lengua 

Mazateca. (Pamphlet.) Oaxaca, 1892. 

Berendt, C. H. (1) Report of Explora- 
tions in Central America . In Smithson- 
ian Report for 1867. Washington, 1872. 

(2) Geographical Distribution of 

the Ancient Central American Civiliza- 
tion. In Jour. Amer. Geogr. Soc. of 
New York, vol. 8. Also in Bol. Soc. 
Mex. Geogr. et Est., 1850 etseq. Two 
series. Vols. 1 and 2 entitled "Boletin 
del Instituto Nacional de Geografia y 
Estadistica." Reprint, (3d ed.) 1861. 

Boyle, Frederick. A Ride across a 
Continent. Vols, i, n. London, 1868. 

Brasseur de Bourbourg. (1) Histoire 
des Nations Civilisees du Mexique et 
de l'Amerique-Centrale. Vols. i-rv. 
Paris, 1857-1859. 

(2) Popol Vuh. le Livre Sacre et 

les Mythes de l'Antiquite Americaine. 
Paris, 1861. 

Brinton, Daniel G. (1) On the so- 
called Alaguilac Language of Guate- 
mala. In Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, 
vol. xxiv, and separate. Phila., 1887. 

(2) On the Xinca Indians of Gua- 
temala. In Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, 
vol. xxi, and separate. Phila., 1884. 

(3) The American Race. New 

York, 1891. 

(4) The Ethnic Affinities of the 

Guetares of Costa Rica. In Proc. 
Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. xxxvi, and 
separate. Phila., 1898. 

(5) Report upon the Collections 

Exhibited at the Columbian Historical 
Exposition. In Report of U. S. Com- 
mission to the Columbian Historical 
Exposition at Madrid, 1892-93. Wash- 
ington, 1895. 

Buelna, Eustaquio. Arte de la Lengua 
Cahita. 1 vol. Mexico, 1891 

97 



98 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



[b. a. e. 



Cancio, D. Lorenzo. (1) Noticias Saca- 

das de los Autos sobre la fuga que 

hicieron los Indios del pueblo de Sua- 

qui. In Doc. Hist. Mex., 4th ser., vol. 

i. Mexico, 1856. 

(2) Letter. Ibid., n, 1856. 

Charencey, Le Comte de. Melanges de 

Philologie et de Paleographie Ameri- 

caines. Paris, 1883. 
Charnay, Desire. The Ancient Cities 

of the New World (translated from the 

French). New York, 1887. 
Clavigero, D. Francesco Saverio. 

The History of Mexico. (English trans- 
lation by Charles Cullen). Vols, i, n. 

London, 1787. 
Cordova, Juan de. Arte del Idioma 

Zapoteco. (Reprint.) Morelia, 1886. 
Documentos para la Historia de Mexico. 

4 series, 20 vols. Mexico, 1853-1857. 
Escobar, Alonso de. Account of the 

Province of Vera Paz. In Jour. Roy. 

Geogr. Soc, vol. xi. London, 1841. 
Fernandez, Leon. (1) Historia de 

Costa Rica durante la Dominacion Es- 

pafiola. 1502-1821. Madrid, 1889. 
(2) Lenguas Indigenas de Centro 

America en el Siglo XVIII. segun copia 

del Archivo de Indias. San Jose de 

Costa Rica, 1892. 
(3) The Guatuso Indians of Costa 

Rica. In Smithsonian Report for 1882. 

Washington, 1884. 
Gabb, William M. On the Indian 

Tribes and Languages of Costa Rica. 

In Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. xrv. 

Phila., 1875. 
Gage, Thomas. The English- American 

his travail by sea and land: or, a new 

survey of the W'est-India's. London, 

1648. 

Galindo, Juan. Description de la Rivi- 
ere Usumasinta dans le Guatimala. In 
Nouv. Ann. Voy., vol. 63. Paris, 1834. 

Garay, Jose de. Reconocimiento del 
Istmo de Tehuan tepee. 1844. 

Garces, Francisco. Diario y derrotero. 
1775-1776. In Doc. Hist, Mex., 2d 
ser., vol. i. Mexico, 1854. 

Garcia, Bartholomew Manual para ad- 
minis trar los Santos Sacramentos. [n. p.] 
1760. 



Gatschet, Albert S. Classification into 
Seven Linguistic Stocks of Western In- 
dian Dialects, contained in Forty 
Vocabularies. In Rep. U. S. Geogr. 
Surv. West of the 100th Meridian, vol. 
vh. Washington, 1879. 

Gll, Hilarion Romero. Memoria. In 
Bol. Soc. Mex. Geogr. et Est., vm. 
Mexico, 1860. 

Gomara, Francisco Lopez de. Histoire 
Generalle des Indes Occiden tales. 
Traduite en Francois par le S. de 
Genille Mart. Fumee. Paris, 1606. 

Grasserie, Raoul de la. Langue 
Zoque et Langue Mixe; Grammaire, 
Dictionnaire, Textes traduits et ana- 
lyses. Paris, 1898. 

Handbook of American Indians North 
of Mexico. Bull. 30, pts. 1, 2, Bureau of 
American Ethnology. Washington, 
1907-1910. 

Hassel, G., and Cannabich, J. G. F. R. 
Vollstandige und neueste Erdbeschrei- 
bung vom reiche Mexico, Guatemala 
und Westindien. Weimar, 1824. 

Herrera, Antonio de. Historia Gene- 
ral. 4 vols. Madrid, 1726-30. 

Hervas, Lorenzo. Catalogo de las Len- 
guas de las Naciones Conocidas. Vol. 1: 
Lenguas y Naciones Americanas. Mad- 
rid, 1800. 

Hewitt, J. N. B. H. Comparative Lexi- 
cology. In 17th Ann. Rept. Bur. Am. 
Eth., pt. 1, Washington, 1898. 

Hrdlicka, Ales. (1) Notes on the In- 
dians of Sonora, Mexico. In Am. Anthr . 
n.s. vol. vi. Lancaster, Pa., 1904. 

(2) The region of the ancient 

"Chichimecs." Ibid., vol. v, 1903. 

ICAZBALCETA, JOAQUIN GARCIA. ColeC- 

cion de Documentos para la Historia de 
Mexico. Vols, i, ir. Mexico, 1858-66. 

Journal of the American Geographical 
Society of New York. Vol. 8. New 
York, 1878. 

Juarros, Domingo. (1) Compendio de 
la Historia de la Ciudad de Guatemala, 
Vols, i, h. Guatemala, 1808-1818. 

(2) Also the English edition, en- 
titled "A Statistical and Commercial 
History of the Kingdom of Guatemala." 
1824. 



bull. 44] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 99 



Kino, E. F., Kappus, M. A., and Mange, 
J. M. Itinerario. In Doc. Hist. Mex., 
4th ser., vol. i. Mexico, 1856. 

Laet, Ioannes de. Novus Orbis. Lugd, 
1633. 

Landa, Diego de. Relation des Choses 
de Yucatan. 1 vol. Paris, 1864. 

Leon, Nicolas. (1) Introduccion [to 
the] Arte del Idioma Zapoteco por el P. 
Fr. Juan de Cordova. Morelia, 1886. 

(2) Familias Linguisticas de 

Mexico. Mexico, 1902. 

Ludewig, Hermann E. The Literature 
of American Aboriginal Languages . ( In 
Triibner's Bibliotheca Glottica, I.) 
London, 1858. . 

Lumholtz, Carl. The Huichol Indians 
of Mexico. In Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. 
Hist., vol. x, pp. 1-4. New York, 1898. 
(Also separate.) 

Lyon, G. F. Journal of a Residence and 
Tour in the Republic of Mexico. Vols, 
i, ii. London, 1828. 

McGee W J. The Seri Indians. In 17th 
Rep. Bur. Am. Ethnol., pt. 1. Wash- 
ington, 1898. 

Maler, Teobert. Researches in the 
Central Portion of the Usumatsintla 
Valley . In Mem . Peabody Mus . , Har v . 
Univ., vol. 2, no. 1. Cambridge, 1901. 

Maudslay, Alfred P. Exploration of 
the Ruins and Site of Copan, Central 
America. In Proc. Roy. Geogr. Soc, 
vol. vm. London, 1886. (Also sepa- 
rate.) 

Membreno, Alberto. Hondurenismos. 
Vocabulario de los Provincialismos de 
Honduras. Tegucigalpa, 1897. 

Morfi, Juan Agustin de. Viage de 
Indios y Diario del Nuevo-Mexico. 
Part 4, 3d series, Doc. Hist. Mex., 
Mexico, 1856(?). (Also separate vol.) 

Mota Padilla, Matias de la. Historia 
de la Conquista de la Provincia de la 
Nueva-Galicia. [1742.] Mexico, 1870. 

Muller, Frederick. Grundriss der 
Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. n. Wien, 
1882. 

Nouvelles Annales des Voyages. Vol. 
63. Paris, 1834. 

Orozco y Berra, Manuel. (1) Geo- 
grafia de las Lenguas y Carta Etnogra- 
fica de Mexico. Mexico, 1864. 



Orozco y Berra, Manuel. (2) Observa- 
ciones. In Bol. Soc. Mex. Geogr. Est., 
vin, Mexico, 1860. 

Ortega, Joseph de. Vocabulario en 
Lengua Castellana y Cora. 1732. In 
Bol. Soc. Mex. Geogr. Est.,* 1st ser., vol. 
vm, Mexico, 1860. (Also separate.) 

Oviedo y Valdes, Gonzalo Fernandez 
de. Historia General y Natural de las 
Indias. Vols.m, iv. Madrid, 1853-55. 

Palacio, Diego Garcia de. Carta Di- 
rijida al Rey de Espana, ano 1576. Al- 
bany, 1860. No. 1 of Squier's Collec- 
tion. 

Peralta, Manuel M. de. (1) Costa- 
Rica, Nicaragua y Panama en el Siglo 
XVI. Madrid and Paris, 1883. 

(2) On the Ethnology of Costa Rica. 

In Doctor Brinton's "Report upon the 
Collection Exhibited at the Colum- 
bian Historical Exposition at Madrid." 
Washington, 1895. See Brinton (5). 

Pimentel, D. Francisco. Cuadro de- 
scriptivo y comparativo de las Lenguas 
Indigenas de Mexico. Vols, i, n. 
Mexico, 1862-1865. 

Pin art, A. L. (1) Vocabulario Castella- 
no-Cuna. Paris, 1890. 

(2) Vocabulario Castellano-Do- 

rasque, Dialectos Chumulu, Gualaca, y 
Changuina. Paris, 1890. 

(3) Vocabulario Castellano-Guay- 

mie, Dialectos Move-Valiente, Norteno 
y Guaymie-Penonomeno. Paris, 1892. 

(4) Vocabulario Castellano-K'ak'- 

chi. Paris, 1897. 

(5) Les Indiens de l'Etat de Pa- 
nama. In Revue d'Ethnographie, vi, 
Paris, 1887. 

Pittier, H. Nombres Geographicos de 
Costa Rica. 1. Talamanca. San Jose 
de Costa Rica, 1895. 

and Gagini, C. Ensayo Lexico- 

grafico sobre la Lengua de Terraba. 
San Jose de Costa Rica, 1892. 

Plancarte, F. LosTecos. In An. Mus. 
Michoacano. Ano segunda. Morelia, 
1889. 

Powell, John Wesley. Indian Lin- 
guistic Families. In Seventh Ann. 
Rep. Bur. Am. Ethn. Washington, 1891 . 

Prichard, James Cowles. The Natural 
History of Man. Vol. n. London, 1855. 



100 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



[B. a. e. 



Proceedings of the Royal Geographical 
Society. London, 1886. 

Reclus,* Elisee. The Earth and its In- 
habitants — North America. Edited by 

A. H.Keane. Vol.n. New York, 1892. 
Remesal, Antonio de. Historia de la 

Provincia de San Vicente de Chyapa. 

Madrid, 1619. 
Ribas, Andres Perez de. Historia de 

los Triumphos de Nuestra Santa Fee. 

Madrid, 1645. 
Rudo Ensayo, tentativa de una preven- 

cional descripcion geographica de la 

provincia de Sonora. [Written about 

1762.] San Augustin de la Florida, 

1863. 

Sahagun, Barnardino de. Histoire 
Generale des Choses de la Nouvelle- 
Espagne. Translated into French by 
D . Jourdanet and Remi Simeon. Paris, 
1880. 

Sapper, Carl. (1) Beitrage zur Ethno- 
graphic des siidlichen Mittelamerika. 
In Petermanns Mitteilungen, B. 47, 
H. 2, Gotha, 1901. 

(2) Das NordlicheMittel-Amerika, 

Braunschweig, 1897. 

Scherzer, Karl. In Sitzb. Kais. Akad. 
Wissenschaften Philos.-Hist, Classe. 

B. 15. Wien, Jan., 1855. 

Seler, Eduard. Notice sur les Langues 
Zapoteque et Mixteque. Congres In- 
ternational des Americanistes. Compte- 
Rendu. 8th sess. Paris, 1890. 

Sevin, Ch. Journey to Mexico. In 
Jour. Roy. Geogr. Soc, vol. xxx. Lon. 
don, 1860. 

Shupeldt, Robert W. Reports of 
Explorations. Ship-Canal by way o^ 
Tehuantepec. '(42d Cong., 2d sess. 
Ex. Doc. 6.) Washington, 1872. 

Squier, E. G. (1) A Visit to the Guaji. 
quero Ind 4 s. In Harper's Magazine, 
New York, Oct., 1859. 

(2) In Historical Magazine, vol. 

4, no. 3, New York, 1860. 

(3) Nicaragua: Its People, Scen- 
ery, Monuments, and the proposed In- 
teroceanic Canal. 2 vols. New York, 
1852. (Vol. 2 only referred to.) 

(4) Notes on Central America; 

particularly the States of Honduras and 
San Salvador. 1vol. New York, 1855. 



Starr, Frederick. Notes upon the 
Ethnography of Southern Mexico. Re- 
printed from Proc. Davenport Acad. 
Nat. Sci., vol. vm, 1900. 

Stoll, Otto. (1) Die Sprache der Ixil- 
Indianer. Leipzig, 1887. 

(2) Zur Ethnographie der Repub- 

lik Guatemala. Zurich, 1884. 

Tellechea, P. Fr. Miguel. Compendio 
Gramatical para la Inteligencia del 
Idioma Tarahumar. Mexico, 1826. 

Thiel, Bernardo A. (1) Apuntes Lexi- 
cograficos de las Lenguas y Dialectos de 
los Indios de Costa Rica. San Jose 
de Costa Rica, 1882. 

Thiel, Bernardo A. (2) Viajes a Varias 
Partes de la Republica de Costa Rica. 
San Jose, 1896. 

Uhde, Adolph. Die Lander am untern 
Rio Bravo del Norte. Heidelberg, 1861. 

Uhle, M. Verwandtschaften und Wan- 
derungen der Tschibtscha. In Con- 
gres International des Americanistes, 
7th sess. Berlin, 1888. 

Vater, Johann Severin. Mithridates 
oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde. Vols. 
i-iv. Berlin, 1806-1817. 

Velasco, Jose Francisco. (1) Noticias 
Estadisticas del Estado de Sonora. In 
Bol. Soc. Mex. Geogr. y Est., vol. vm. 
Mexico, 1860. 

(2) Continuacion de la Estadistica 

de Sonora. Ibid., vol x, 1863. 

Venegas, Miguel. Noticia de la Cali- 
fornia y de su Conquista Temporal, y 
Espiritual Hasta el Tiempo Presente. 
Vols. i-m. Madrid, 1757. 

Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, Juan de. 
Historia de la Conquista de la Pro- 
vincia de el Itza. [Madrid] 1701. 

Villa-Senor y Sanchez, Joseph Anto- 
nio de. Theatro Americano. Vols, i, 
n. Mexico, 1746-48. 

Williams, J. J. The Isthmus of Tehuan- 
tepec. New York, 1852. 

Young, Thomas. Narrative of a Resi- 
dence on the Mosquito Shore. London, 
1842. 

Zapata, Juan Ortiz. Relacion de las 
Misiones que la Compania de Jesus tiene 
en el Reino y Provincia de la Nueva 
Vizcaya. 1678. In Doc. Hist, Mex., 
4th ser., vol. hi. Mexico, 1857. 



INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES, TRIBES, AND SETTLEMENTS 



Page 

Acala 61 

Acaxee 19-21,24,31 

Acms . 66 

v AC0CLAMES 34 

Aguacateca 66,67 

-Aguascalientes 43 

~ Ahomamas 39 

AHOME 5,12-16,24,26,35 

-Aiage 20 

Aibesto, Aivmo 4-6,24,26 

Ajuchitlan 50 

Alaguilac 72,73 

-Alamamas 39 

- Alchedoma 24-26, 29, 34 

-Altamera 49 

Amatitlan 69 

Amishgo, Amucho, Amusgo 54 

-Anacana 45 

"Astcasiguais 45 

Ancavistis 24, 26 

Anchanes 24,26,30 

-Antigua : 68 

Apache 6,8,25,27-30,32,37,45 

-Aretdstes 45 

"Arigames 24,32 

"Arivetzi 7 

Asunci6n de Macoyahui 18 

Asunci6n de Tepave 18 

Asunci6n Tlaxcalilla 41 

Ate. See Ateanaca. 

ATEACARI 22,24,26 

Ateanaca 22,24,26 

Atitlan 68 

"ATOYAC : . 50 

AUYAPEMES 45 

AYAPAGUEMES 43 

Aztec 17,42,46,50-52,72,78,82 

Babo 24,28,32 

Babispe. See Bapispe. 

Baca 14,26 

Bacabaches 24,26 

Bacapas 24,26 

Bagiopa, Baquiopa 24,26 

Baimena, Baitrena 17,18 

Baemoa 20,24,26,32 

Baitrena 18 

See Baimena. 

Bamoa 4,5,24 

Bapiape 8 

-Bapispe 4,5,24,32-34 

Baquiopa. See Bagiopa. 

Basopa 16,17,24,26 

Basopan 27 

Basiroas 24,26,29,31-33 

Batucari 15, 16, 24, 26, 27 



— B atucos 

See EUD2YE. 

-Baturoque 

-Bayacatos 

— Bayamos 

Bayano. See Cuna. 
- Beceita. See Veceita. 
^Belen 

— BlARAS, BlARIS 

B OR AGIOS 

See Varohio. 

-BORRADOS 

BORUCA 

Boto. See Voto. 

Bribri 

Brunca. See Boruca. 

"BuASDABA 

-buasdapas 

— Bugava 

_3ULBULS 

Buricas, Burucas. See Boruca. 



Page 
,26, 32 

24.27 
24,27 
94 



11 
27,30 
10 

45 



83.84,88-92 

88-02 



83. 



Cabecar, Cabecara, Cabecares 
""Cabeza ..: 

Cacalotes 

Cacaopera 

Cacari, Cacaria 

Cadinias 

-Cahabon 

Cahiguas. See Kjowa^ 

CAHITA 

See Yaqui. 

-Cahuimeto 

-Cajone 

Cajuenche 24,27,29,30 

Cakchekel 67 

-Galderas 

-€anaynes 

"^Ganceres 

-Cangen 

-Cantren '< 

-Caramarigetanes 

-Caramigetais 

-Carapoa 

Carca 

-Carcha. 

See Cukra. 

--Garlanes 

Carib 75,76 

-Caribayes 

-Caribbean 

€atanamepaques 

-Cavenata 

€aviseras 

Caxcanes 

CAZCAN 23,24, 



,25,33 
34 
93, 94 
79 



89,91 
37 
30 
76 

24. 27 
45 
68 



11-16.21,29 



16 



32,34 
68,75 
93 
45 
24,27 
82 
78 
45 
45 
14 
SO 



24.27 
81,96 
45 



SI. 95 
45 
12 
39 
24 

40-43 



101 



102 



INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES 



Page 

Cazcanes Chichimecas 24 

" Cekbo Peteto 47 

^CHAFALOTES 24,27 

— Chajul 67 

Chakahuaxti 49 

Chaltya 93,94 

Chanabal, Chaneabal 64,65 

— Changuaguanes 24,27 

— Changuene 83,84,89,93 

Changuina 90,94 

—Char ay 15 

Charcas 41 

Chatino 54 

Chemeguabas. .See Chemeguet. 

Chemegue 24 

Chemeguet, Chemeguaba, Chemegues, 

Chemehuevi 24,26,27 

Cm a pa 61' 

Cheap anec, Chiapaneca 60-62.82 

Chiapanecan 76-78,85 

Chibcha 80, 81, 84, 85, 88, 89, 95 

Chicagua. See Sigua. 

— Chicaua 82,93 

Chichagua. See Sigua. 

i^-Chtchen Itza 71 

Chichlmec, Chjchtmeca, Chichlmecos 40-43, 

46,48,83,93 

Chichimecas Blancos 43 

— Chicorata, Chicorato 12,16,24,26,32 

Chicomucelo 64,65 

Chicomucelteca 64,65 

-Chicuras 24,27 

See Cicuris. 

— Chicurata 17 

Chhanga 74 

— Chimalapax 72 

Chinantec 55 

—Chinarra 24,29,32,34 

See Huma. 

-Xhlntpa 8-10,18,24,26,28,32,33,35 

See Tarahumare. 

^-Chjnqutme 53 

"~Chiqutmula 70 

Chhiicaguis, Chtricahua 24, 27 

-Chcros 24,28 

Chtrripo 89-91 

-Cmzo 24,28,34 

Chocho 51,53,54,96 

— Chochontin 53 

Chol, Choles 61-64,66,69,71-73,75 

- Cholomos 30 

Cholos 94 

Choluteca 76,77 

See Mangue. 
Chomes 83 

— Chondal, Chontal 52,53,58-63,74,76 

Chontal-Lencas 74 

Chora 21 

See Cora. 

Chorote 78 

Chorotega 77,78,82-84,86 

Chorti 63,69,70,72 

Chota. 21 

See Cora. 
Chuchon. See Chocho. 

- Chucunaque. See Cuna. 



Page 

Chuje, Chuhe 64-66 

--Chuloteca 77 

-Chumaltenango « 68 

Chumula 94 

-Cibola 31 

-Cicuris 27 

Cenaloas 11-16,21 

See Yaqui. 

Cnsr arras 34 

-Civolo 31 

c o ahutlte can, coahutlteco 38,42 

Cob an 68,69 

Coca 23,24,26 

Cochtmi 2, 3 

-Coclamas 24,27,28 

cocobeptas 24,27 

COCOPA, CUCAPA, CUHANES 2,25,27,29,32,34 

Cocos 79 

COCOTLANES. See COLOTLAN. 

Coctos. See Cotos. 

Cocotome 28,37 

--^OGUTNACnis 7,24,26 

See Opata. 

--colotlan, cocotlan, coloclan 22,23 

Comanche 29 

- comecamotes 45 

Comecrudo 38,45 

-COMESACAPEMES 45 

COMICARI 33 

-X'omopori 15,16,24,26 

COMORIPA, COMURH>A 4-6, 15, 24, 26 

Concepci6n 9 

Concepci6n de Chjcorato 17 

concepci6n de vaca 14 

Concha, Concho . . 8, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30-32, 34, 36-38, 42 
-Conejos 24,27,30 

CONGUACO 74 

-Conicari 12,18,19,33 

- — CoNTLAS 24,27 

COOKRA 79 

-Cop ala 53 

-Cop an 63,69,70 

Cora 3,21-24,26,32,34,36,40-43 

Corbestes. See Corobicies. 

Corobicies 77,82 

-COROTAPA 82,93 

COTONAME 38,45 

Cotos 83,84,88,92 

--COTZAL 67 

Cuachichiles. See Guachjchele. 

■^CUAMPES 24,27 

CUANES 2 

See Cocopa. 
Cucapa. See Cocopa. 

-cuencame 39 

--Cues 19,24,25,27,31 

Cueva. See Cuna. 
--Cuhanes. See Cocopa. 

-Cuilapa 52 

cuicateco 55 

cuitlateca, cuitlateco 50,51,53 

- -CUIXTLAHUAC 52 

CUKRA 79,80 

See Carcha, Cookra. 

CULMI 75 

Cumupa 8,25,33,34 



INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES 



103 



Page 

CUNA 94-96 

Cunacuna. See Cuna. 

Cunai 24,27 

See Cocopa. 



Page 

L Guazarachis 24,28 

j^GUAZAVE, Quasare 5,12,15-17,28 

"Guetare, Guetars 83-90 

I Guichola. See Huichol. 



Cutecos 

See Husorones. 

CUTGANES 

See Cocopa. 



24,28,29 kGuiCHICOVI.-. 60 

l^guixolotes 45 

... 24,27 L-Gummesacapemes 45 



Daparabopos. 

Dariens 

See Cuna. 
Didu 



28 

76-78,82 
29 
92 
7 



83,93 
94. 



DORASKEAN, DOR- 

77,80,90,93-95 



DlEGUEXO 

DlRIA, D IRIAN 

DlTSAKANA 

DJBAR-UAK 

DOHEMA, DOHME 

See Eudeve. 

DORACES 

DORACHOS 

See Dorask. 

DORASK, DORASKAN, 
ASQUE 

Dorasque-Changuina 93 

Dulce Nombre. See Culmi. 

Eastern Lacandones 70 

echunticas 24,28 

Edit 2 

Egue : 6 

See Eudeve. 

El Fuerte 35 

Esqutpulas 70 

ESTRELLA 89,91 

-Etla 55 

Eudeve, Heve 6, 7, 26, 34 

Faraon, Faraon Apache 24, 26-31 



-Gabilanes 

Garabito 

Gecualme 

Gecuiches 

Genicuiches 

See Serranos. 

Gila Apache, Gdlenos 24,25, 

-Gojoles 

Gozaua, Gozopas, Guacaues. See Gua- 

ZAVE. 

guachichile 22,23,40,41, 

guachichiles cmchimecos 

-Guadalupe '. 

Guaicama6pas 

GUAELOPAS 24, 

GUAJIQUERO 

GUALACA 

GUAROPAQUE 

GUASAROCHIC 

GUATAJIGUA 

GUATUSAN 

Guatuso 77,80,82, 

Guavi 

See Huame. 

GUAYMA 5, 

GUAYMI, Guaymie 83,84,89, 

GUAZAFARE, GUAZAPARIS, GUAZIPARE, GUIZI- 

PARES 8-10,32,33, 



37 
83 
22 
24,28 
24,28 

28,32 
24, 28, 



44,47 
41 
10 

24,28 

28, 29 . 
74 

93,94 
28 
29 
74 
85 

84,87 
59 

10,11 
93-96 



I^Gurutina. See Orotina. 

Havasupai, Supis 

Heve. See Eudeve. 
Hilmu. See Otomi. 
Hiaqui. See Yaqui. 

Hichucios 

HlJOS, Hios, Ihios 9, 10, 24, 26, 29, 31- 

-HlMERIS 24, 

Hina 20,21, 

Hizos 

HOABONOMA 

See Oaboponomas. 

HOERAS 

HORCASITAS 

HOSTIMURI 

HUABI, HUAVE 

See Huame. 

Huame 

Huasteca 42,43,45,43,48,49, 

HUASTECOA 

Huave. See Huabi. 

HUDCOADANES 

HUERE 

HUEHUETENANGO 

Huetare. See Guetare. 

Huichol, Huicholas 22, 

"TIuime. See Hume. 

Jf Huite 10,21, 

Huma 24, 

See Chinarra. 
-Hume, Huime 20,21, 

^HUMERIS 

HURE 

Husorones 24, 

Huvagueres 24,29, 

Hymeris. See Himeris. 



35, 



25,31 



24 
33,35 
34,35 
24, 26 
24,29 

30 



44 
15 

59,60 

59 
65,66 
47 

24,29 
35 
67 



24, 26 
29,34 

24,26 
32 
35 
28,29 
31,32 



Ihios. See Hijos. 

IKA 2 

Intibucat 74 

Ipapana 49 

Iritilas, Iritiles, Irritila, Irritilas.. 37-40,42 
Itza 70-72 



IXHUATAN. 

IXIL 

IXIMCHI. . . 
IZCATECO. . 
1ZTEPEC . . . 



67, 



jacalteca 64-66 

Jacaltenango 64-66,69 

Jagullapais. See Walapai. 

Jalap a 69 

Jalchedun, Jalchedune. See Alche- 

DOMA. 

Jallicuamai, Jallicuamay 25, 29, 34 

See Quigyuma. 
Jamajabs. See Mohave. 

Janambre 44,46 



104 



INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES 



Janos 25,29 

- Jaquallapais. See Walapai. 

JlCARILLA, JlCARILLA APACHE 27,32 

See XlCAFJLLAS. 

— JlCAQUE 74-76,96 

JlCAQUEAN 75 

JlJIMES 19-21 

Jinca. See Xinca. 
Jobal. See Jova. 

— JOCOMES, JOCOMIS . 25, 29 

~~ JOCOTAN 69 

Jonases, Jonaz. See Meco. 

Jova, Ova ._ 7,8 

Juave. See Huame. 

, — Julimes 30,34 

JlTMANES 25,29 

JUPILTEPEQUE 73 

JUTIAPA 73 



K'aktchi. See Kekchi. 

Kawia 

Kekchi 

Kiche, Quiche 

Kiowa, Cahigua. 

'-'Kork-uak 

kotsoteka 



28 

67-69,71 
... 67,68 
... 24,27 
92 



70-72 
37-40 



68 
38,45 
2 

•75, 79 
77, 96 
73, 74 
45 
76 
25,29 
2 



Lacandon 63, 

LAGUNEROS : 

See Iritilas. 

Lam an 

Lanquin 

Las Prietas 

Laymon. 

Lenca 73- 

Lencan Stock 53,72-75, 

Lencan Pupuluca 

Lip an 

LlSLIQUE 

Llamparicas 

LORETTO 

Lorillard City. See Menche. 

Los Dolores 7 

Lower Pima 4-8,11,18,29,31,32,35,36 

Lower Tarahumare 9 

Macoyahui, Macoyahuy 18, 31 

Maguiaquis 25,28,29 

Maiconeras : 39 

Maiz 47 

Malinchenos 45 

Mam, Mame 65-67 

Mamites, Mammites 25,29 

Mandinga. See Cuna. 

Mangue . 76-78,82-84 

See Chorotega. 
Maribi. See Subtiaba. 

Maricopa 30 

Mariguanes 45 

Matachic 8 

Matagalpa 76 

Matagalpan 76,77,96 

Matapanes 25,30 

Matlaltzinco 48 

See Pirinda. 

Maya 15, 59, 63, 64, 6", 70-72, 75 

Mayan Family 1,48,49,53,59,61,62,65-67,69 

Mayan Pupuluca 73 



Page 

5, 12-14, 18, 19, 26, 35 

12 

46,47 

54,55 

67 



2.5, 



Mayathan. See Maya. 

Mayo 

Mayon 

Mazahua 

Mazatec, Mazateca, Mazateco 

Mazatenango 

-Meco 

Mediotaguel 

-Mejuos 

Melchoras 

Menche 

Mescaleros. See Mezcaleros. 

— Mesquites. See Mezquites. 
—Mevtras 

Mexican, Mexicano 19 

34, 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 48, 50, 51, 60, 61 , 78, 82, 
See Aztec, Nahuatl, Nahuatlan, 
Sigua. 

-Mexcaltepec 

"Mextitlaneca 

-tMextitlateco 

_Mezcaleros 

^Mezquites 

Michoacano 

See Tarasco. 

Micos 

— MlCTLANTONGO 

Mimbrenos 

-HVIlOPACOAS 

MlTA 

Mixe 51,60.. 

MlXTEC, MlXTECAS 

MlXTECO-ZAPOTECO 

Mize. See Mixe. 
Mobas. See Movas. 

Mochicagui, Mochicahuy 

Mocorito 

Mohave, Jamajabs, Tamajabs, Yama- 

JABS 25, 

- Montane s 

Montecristo 

L Montenegro 

j MOPAN, MOPANAS 64, 

4- Moreno 

I Mosquito... 79.83, 

motozintleca 

-[-Movas, Mobas 4-0, 

Move-Valiente 

■(— MOYAUA 

MUARES 

Muoi 

MURIRE 

MURIRE-BUKUETA 

^MUUTZICAT 22, 

See Muutzizti. 
Muutzizti 



32,34 
25,30 



63,71 



39 
20,23, 
83, 93 



50 
50 
42 
25,30 



51 



52 
25,30 



65, 74 
52-58 
54 



15,35 
35 

29,34 
52 
70 
65 

70-72 
76 

94,96 
65 

25,26 
95 

82,93 

25,30 
95 
95 
95 

25,26 



25 



NACAMERI 25,35 

4-NACOSURAS 25.35 

Nagrandans 77 

See Subtiaba. 

Nahuatl, Nahua, Nahoa 12, 42, 43, 55, 82-84 

Nahuatlan : 1, 18, 20, 21 , 24, 36, 37 , 

41 , 44, 46, 50, 51, 59, 65, 72-74, 76, 78, 89, 92, 93 
— Naolingo 49 

Nayarit, Nayarita 21,22,24 

I Sec Cora. 



INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES 



105 



Page 

Navaho, Navajo, Navajoa 25,30 

-Nebaj 67 

--Nebomes. See Lower Pima. 

Nenton 66 

- Netzecho 55 

. Neuton. See Nenton. 

Nevomes. See Lower Pima. 

- Nicoya 78- 

See Orotina. 

Nio 16,17 

NIQUIRAN , 42,76,78 

" "Nochiztlan 52 

-"Nocori 4 

NORTENO 95 

nuestra senora de aranzazu 27 

Nuevo Le6n 38 

Nure, Nuri 4-6,25,26,28,32 

- Oaboponomas 25, 30 

- OCHOES 39 

- OCORONI 12,25,32,35 

-Ocoroiri. See Ocoroni. 

OCOTLAN 55 

' Oguera, Ohuera 16 

Olive 44 

Olmec 55 

-Onabas, Onavas 4-6,25,26 

^OPAS... 25,30 

Opata 4-8,11,25-27,32-35 

Opata-Tarahumar-Pima family 22 

Opatoro 74 

*■ Oposines 25,30 

Orejones 25,30 

- Oronthuatos 25,30 

Orotina.. 78,81,82,86,96 

Orottnan 76-78 

Ostimuri. See Hostimuri. 

— - Otaquitamones 25,30 

Otomi 41-43,46,47,50 

Otomian 48 

Ova. See Jova. 

^Pacaca 83 

* Pacasa 25,32,35 

Pachera 8, 9 

- Pachuca 42 

Paiute 30 

Pajalames 25,30 

Pakawa, Pakawan 37,38,45 

PALENQUE 62,63,70 

Pame 42,44,46,47 

* Panana (Pawnee) -. 25,30 

- Panguayes 45 

Pantasmas 79 

- Pantepec 49 

'M PAOGAS 39 

Papago 26,30 

- PAPUDO 20,25,26 

- PARO 82 

- PARRAS 39 

- Parrastahs 79 

Pasalmes 25,30 

* Pasitas 45 

Pawnee 30 

- Paxttchis 25,30 

PAYA, Payan 74,75,96 

- Payuchas 25,30 

8347°— Bull. 44—11 8 



.63 



68, 72, 73 



Pazuchis 

Pericu 

Petapa 

Petatlan 

Peten 

See Itza. 
Piatos 

PlEDRAS NEGRAS 

Plma 

See Lower Pima. 

Plman.. 

Pima Bajo. See Lower Pima 

PlMERIA ALTA 

— PlNOME 

—PlNOS ■ 

PlNTOS 

PlPIL 

PlRENDA 

Pmos 25 

PlSONE 

POARAMES 

Pococi 

pokam, pokomam 64,66,68. 

Pokonchi. 

POLAMES 

POLIUTLA 

PONTDA 

POPOLOCA, POPOLOCO 51,53,54 

See Pupuluca. 

POTLAPIGUA 

— POTRERO 

Pueblos 

— Pulicas, Puilques, Puliquis 

Pupuluca 5,53,68 

See Popoloca. 

Pupuluca Cakchikel 

— purisevia concepci6n de arnedo 

PUTLMA 



30 
2,3 
69 
35 
70, 71 



25,30 

63 

4-6,11,15, 16,30,31,35 

2,4,6,26,36 



11 

53 
41 
45 
75,78 
46, 48 
32,35 
44,46 
25,30 
82 
69,73 
68, 69 
25,30 
50 
7 

60,73 

4,32 
93 
31 

25,30" 
73, 74 

68 
47 
25,30 



-QUALCAN 

QUASARE 

See Guazave. 
Quekchi. See Kekchi. 

QUELENE 

-QUEMAYA 

QUEPOS 

QUEQUEXQUE 

QUETZ ALTEN ANGO 

-pQUICAMOPAS 

Quiche. See Kiche. 

Quigyuma 29 

See Jallicuamai. 

QUIHUIMAS 25 

See QuiQUiMA. 

QUINICUANES <5 

QUIQUIMA 25,31,34 

QuiRlGUA 63,70 



35 



61,62 

... 25,30,31 
83,84,88,90 

82,93 

67 

25.31 



Rabinal. 
Rama 



67 



,s7. 



Sabaibo 19,20 

-Sabanero 95 

-Sahuaripa 7 

-salineros 11,25,26 

— Saltillo 41 

salto de agua 64 



106 



INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES 



Page 

San Agustin ■. 72 

San Andres 20 

San Andres Chicahuaxtla 53 

San Andres Chinipas 28 

San Andres de Conicari 10,28 

San Antonio : 44 

San Blas Indians. See Cuna. 

San Cristobal 50 

San Cristobal Acasaguastlan 72 

San Francisco 50 

San Francisco Borgia , 2 

San Francisco de Coahuila 38 

San Francisco Xavier 44 

San Ignacio 

San Ignacio de Chicuris 17 

San Ignacio de Nio 17. 

S. Jose Cabecar 89 

San Jose Charay 14 

San Jose Chicahuaxtla 53 

San Jose del Toro 18 

San Jose Temaichic 9 

San Jose Teopari 7 

San Jose Vizarron 48 

S. Juan Bautista de Carapoa 13 

San Luis 41 

San Luis de la Paz 47, 48 

San Martin de Atotonhco 20 

San Martin Ytunyosa 53 

San Mateo Malzura 7 

San Mateo Tecayas 31 

San Miguel 9 

San Miguel Chicahuaxtla 53 

San Miguel de Zuaque 15 

San Miguel Mezquitic 41 

San Miguel Uspantan 68 

San Pedro Carcha 68 

San Pedro Guadalcazar 43 

San Pedro Guazaye 17 

San Pedro Sabana 64 

Santa Ana 34 

Santa Catallna de Baitrena 18 

Santa Catarina Martyrs de Rio Verde. . 43 

Santa Cruz Quiche 67 

Santafe de Punta-hicacos 76 

Santa Ines 10 

Santa Ines de Chlnipa 10,28 

Santa Lucia Cozumalhuapa 73 

Santa Maria de Batuco 33. 

Santa Maria Magdalena de Temoris 35-36 

Santa Rosa 70 

Santa Teresa de Guazapares 36 

Santo Domingo Chicahuaxtla 53 

Santo Domingo del Palenque 64 

Santo Tomas 7,8 

Saulapaguemes 45 

Savanerics i 94 

Sayirltoa 14 

Segua. See Sigua. 
Seguis. See Teguis. 

Seri 4-7,10,11,36 

Serranos 28,48 

Shelaba. See Sigua. 

SlBUBAPAS 25,31 

Sigua... ~ 92 

SlMHITON 74 

SlNACANTAN 73 



30,31 

14 
79 

32,35 
28,31 

15 
30,31 

79 

25,31 
31 



21 

25 

65 
79 

77,96 
61 
87 

32.35 
79 



Sinaloas 11-15,21,27,28, 

See Yaqui. 

" ~~ SlNALOITA 

-SlQUIAS 

-SlSIBOTARI 5,25, 

SlSIMBRES 25. 

•~ SlVTRIJOA 

SlVOLOS 25. 

Smoos 

See Ulva. 

SOBAIPURI 

-SOBAS 

SOLEDAD DE LAS CANOAS 

" " SOLOLA 

--SONORAN GROUP 

4-SOVAS 

SUAQUE, Suaqui. See Zuague. 

SUBINHA 

SUBIRONAS 

SUBTLiBA, SUBTIABAN 76, 

-SUCHJAPA , 

— SUERRE (?) 

T^SUMAS 25, 

Sumo 

See Ulva. 

—6 UNAS 

Supis. See Havasupai. 



-Tactic 69 

Tagualhos 45 

Tahue 25,32,34,35 

See Tahueca. 

Tahueca 35 

Talamanca 85,88,89,96 

Talamancan 80,85,86,90-93 

-Tamaja 69 

Tamajabs. See Mohave. 

Tamaulipas 38,45 

Tamaulipecan 42 

Tamaulipeco 44,45 

-t amazulapa 52 

Tamlme 43 

- -Tanaquiapemes 45 

Tanoan 35 

Taocas, Twacas 79 

Tapachula 60,65 

Tapachulteca 60,65 

Tapacolmes 25,30,31,34 

Tapltulapanes 60 

Tarahumare 4, 6-10, 18, 19, 28, 29, 33-38 

Tarascan 47 

Tarasco 46,48,51 

-_Tarl\ca 83.89-91 

Tatlmolo 49 

-Taura 10 

'"Teacuacitzica, Teacuacitzisti, Tecuat- 

ztlzisti 22,25,26 

Tebaca 19,20 

Teca 51 

Tecargonis 25,31 

-Tecaya 20,25,26,30-32 

-TECAYAGUES, Tecayagui 19.24,25,27,31 

See Cues. 

Teco 50,51,53 

See Cuitlateca. 
--Tecolutan 72 



INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES 



107 



Page 

.TECORIPA 4-6,25,26 

-Tecpam.. 68 

Tecualme 22 

,Tecuatzilzisti. See Teacuacitzica. 

Tecuexe, Tecuezes 23.24,43 

Tedexenos . 45 

Teguecos. See Tehueco. 

Teguima.. 6,7,25,26 

See Opata. 

Teguis, Seguis 7,25,26 

See Opata. 

Tehatas 25,29,31,33 

Tehue... 33,34 

Tehueco, Tegueco, Thehueco 5, 

12-15,18,19,27,29,30, 35 

Tehuiso, Tehuizos 25,29,31,33 

-Teluskie(?) 94 

Temori 9,10,25,32 

Tenango 53 

Tenime 53 

Temosique 64 

Teo-Chichimeca 43 

Tepahue, Tepaue, Tepave 18, 19, 31, 33 

TeparAntana 25,31 

Tepaue, Tepave. See Tepahue. 

Tepecano 22-24,28,43 

Tepehuane, Tepehuan, Tepehua, Tepe- 

HUANA, TEPEGUANE 4, 

5,8,9, 17, 19, 23, 24, 27, 36, 40, 41, 46, 50 

Teposcolula 52 

-t epuzcul ano 52 

Tequistlateca 58,59 

Sec Chontal. 

Tequistlatecan 59 

Terraba, Terbis, Terrebes, Tiribi, Tir- 

RIBI 83,84,89-92 

Tesomachic 8 

See Tosonachic. 

Tetiktlhati 49 

Teul, Teule 23,24,42 

Teul-Chichimecs 24,40,41,43 

Tezcoco, Tezcuco 42,50 

Thehuecos. See Tehueco. 

TrouRONES 25,32,30 

»Tn.A 64 

-Tintis 25,31 

Tiribi, Tiribies, Tiribis, Tirribi, Tlrri- 
bies. See Terraba. 

Tlacolulita 59 

Tlahaco. See Tlaxiaco. 

Tlaltenango 24 

Tlapanec, Tlapaneco 51,53,54 

Tlascala, Tlaxcala 50 

Tlascalan.. 50,51,74 

Tlascalteca 74 

Tlaxcala. See Tlascala. 

-Tlaxco 50 

Tlaxiaco 52 

Tlaxomultecas 25 

Toboso 27,28,31,32,34,37,38,42 

TOCHO 25,28,31 

Tojolabal 64 

See Chanabal. 

toltec, tolteca 42,43- 

Toll an 48 

tonachic 4 



TONASES 

TONTOS 

TOONGLA 

-"TOPIA 20, 

See Acaxee. 

— TORAMES 25, 

^TORASQUE * 

^ORO 

-Tosonachic 

TOTONAC 46, 

—TOTONICAPAN 

-Tovare. See Tubar. 

^T OX ARE 

Trike 

-Tripas blancas 

Troe 

See Zoe. 

Tubar, Tubare 8,9, 

-~t ubor-uak 

tucurric, tucurrique 

.-TUCURU 

v Tula 

TULE 

See Cuna. 

^TUMBALA 

Twakas. See Taocas. 

Tzkntal 60-63, 

TZOTZIL 

Tzutuhil 



48 
25,32 

79 
21,31 

32,36 
89 
14 
8 

49,50 
67 



52-54 
37 
18 

17, 18 
92 

89,91 
69 
44,48 
42, 94 



04 



69,71 
62 



Ulva, Ulua 78,79 

Ulvan family 78, 96 

tjpanguayma 11 

Upper Pima. See Pima. 

Urutina. See Orotina. 

uscapemes 

Uspanteca 

^Usumatlan 

Utciti, Utschiti 

-Ute, Yuta 



45 

68 

72 

2,3 

25,32 

VACA 14 

See Baca. 

Vacoregue 12,15,16.35 

-Vaimoa 20 24-26,32 

See Baimoa. 

Vallentes 95,96 

Valle de Atotonilco 41 

Valle de S. Bartholome 37 

Valle de Santa Barbara 36 

Varohio, Boragio 8-10,28,29,31-33 

Vassapalles 39 

Vayema 25,32 

■ ' Veceita, Beceita, Viceita, Viceite.. 83,84,89,92 
Venado 41 

■KVoto 82,86,87 

WABI 59 

See Huame. 

Waicuri 2,3,34 

Waicurian 2 

Walapai, Jagullapais, Jaquallapais 25,29 

Walwa, Woolwas. See Ulva. 



X ALAPA-L A-GRANDE . 

Xalpan 

Xaltepec 



108 



INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES 



Page 

Xanambre 44 

See Janambee. 

Xelitla 42 

Xicagua. See Sigua. 

XlCALANGO 61 

XlCAQUE , .... 75 

See Jicaque. 

XlCAEILLAS 25,32,37 

See JlCARILLA. 

Xilenos. See Gilenos. 

Xinca, Xincan 72-73,96 

XlXIME 19 

See Jijime. 

xuchipila 24 

Yacum 28 

Yamajabs. See Mohave. 
Yamparicas. See Llamparicas. 

Yanabopos 39 

Yaqui, Hiaqui... 4 : 5, 9, 11, 12-19, 21, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36 

Yaquimi 12 

Yaxjhuatlan 52 

Yavipai 25,32 

See Apache. 

Yecoratos 25,32 

Yepachic 4,8 

Yope 1 51,53 

Yuanes 2,25,32 

See Coco pa. 



Page 

Yule. See Cuna. 

Yuma 28,29,30,32,34 

Yuman 2,3.26,59 

Yuta. See Ute. 



Zaachhla 

Zacateco 

Zaklohpakap 

See Mam. 

Zalaya : 

Zapanci 

Zapotec, Zapotecas 

Zapotecan 1,52, 

.-Zayahuecos 25, 

--Zegua 

-|-Zeldales, Zeltales 

See Tzental. 

Zentispac 

Zlmatlan 

zocaltenango 

ZOE 

Zoquean Family 

zotzil, zotzhes 

See Tzotzh. 

ZUAGUE, ZUAQUE 4,12-16, 

ZuSii 

Zutuhh. See Tzutuhil. 



55 

20,23,24,39,40-43 
66 



43 
82 
52-60 
54,55 
32,36 
89 
62 

36 
61 
65 

16-18 
1,60 

60-62 

31.36 
31 



LB Je '12 



85° 



84° 



i 



